Case ID: or_303/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM GILLETTE, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted June 3,
    affirmed August 4,
    reconsideration denied October 20, 1987
    NEIL G. HINES, Petitioner on review, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent on review.
    
    (CA A41690; SC S33872)
    740 P2d 775
    Lawrence E. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. On the petition for review was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
    J. Scott McAlister, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    PER CURIAM
    
      Gillette, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Linde, J.
   PER CURIAM

Petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree and was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment with a five-year minimum.

At petitioner’s prison term hearing, the Board of Parole (Board) established a history/risk score of 6, crime category 6 with a matrix range of 44 to 56 months, but sustained the 60-month minimum. Petitioner appealed from the final order of the Board dated August 15, 1986. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion.

Petitioner seeks review, alleging that the Board failed to satisfy the requirements of ORS 144.135 in sustaining the 60-month minimum. Petitioner’s procedural contentions are answered in Anderson v. Board of Parole, 303 Or 618, 740 P2d 760 (1987).

This petitioner also asserts that the Board failed to consider factors in mitigation, contending that he did not commit the crime or does not remember committing it because he was on a drinking spree. Neither of these contentions constitutes mitigation.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

GILLETTE, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Anderson v. Board of Parole, 303 Or 618, 632, 740 P2d 760, 769 (1987), I respectfully dissent from that portion of this opinion dealing with a “detailed explanation,” under ORS 144.135, of the action taken by the Board of Parole with respect to the mandatory minimum sentence. I concur with the balance of the opinion.

Linde, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.