Case Name: ROBERT DOYLE MURPHY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1996-05-01
Citations: 140 Or. App. 642
Docket Number: CA A83273
Parties: ROBERT DOYLE MURPHY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 140
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs August 25, 1995,
affirmed May 1,
respondent’s motion for reconsideration allowed by opinion October 2, 1996
See 143 Or App 605, 925 P2d 98 (1996)
ROBERT DOYLE MURPHY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
(CA A83273)
915 P2d 489
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Robert K. Lau, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that rescinded his parole release date. He contends that the Board violated applicable law by failing to hold a hearing before issuing the order. He asks us to reverse the order and to remand with specific instructions that the Board release petitioner.
We agree with petitioner that the Board violated an applicable rule by failing to hold a hearing prior to issuing its order. We decline, however, to grant petitioner the relief that he seeks. The only relief to which petitioner is entitled is a hearing to determine if he should be released, and the Board held such a hearing after the order on review. Because petitioner has been accorded a full hearing, no further relief remains to be granted. See, e.g., Floyd v. Motor Vehicles Div., 27 Or App 41, 44-45, 554 P2d 1024, rev den 276 Or 873 (1976).
Affirmed.