Case ID: or-app_92/html/0705-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted March 31,
    petition for judicial review dismissed August 24,
    reconsideration denied October 14,1988,
    petition for review pending 1989
    THOMAS NICHOLAS MERIWEATHER, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent.
    
    (CA A44925)
    759 P2d 1141
    Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief was Thomas Nicholas Meriweather, pro se.
    
    David L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Scott McAlister, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
    Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Graber, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of the Board of Parole setting a “parole consideration date.” See ORS 144.228. He asserts that we have jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 144.335. We do not.

ORS 144.335 grants this court jurisdiction only over orders of the Board that fix a parole release date, revoke parole, or discharge a person from parole. Addicks v. Board of Parole, 63 Or App 409, 413, 663 P2d 1310 (1983). Because the order in this case does none of those things, we lack jurisdiction.

Petition for judicial review dismissed. 
      
       Petitioner also cites OAR 255-80-010 and ORS 183.482 as bases for jurisdiction. The administrative rule is inapposite, and ORS 183.482 does not apply to persons in custody of the Department of Corrections. ORS 183.315(5).
     
      
       At oral argument, we asked the Public Defender and the Attorney General to provide additional briefing on the merits. Both submitted excellent briefs, which we appreciate.