Case Name: CECIL TURNER, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1998-11-04
Citations: 157 Or. App. 182
Docket Number: 96C-13755; CA A99354
Parties: CECIL TURNER, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Wollheim, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 157
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted July 10,
affirmed November 4, 1998,
petition for review denied April 13,1999 (328 Or 419)
CECIL TURNER, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
(96C-13755; CA A99354)
968 P2d 858
A. Sue Guthrie argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Judy C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Wollheim, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, seeks review of the trial court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court erred in various respects. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In this action, plaintiff challenged the validity of a Board of Parole order deferring his release date from May 1995 to May 1997 on the basis of a psychological evaluation. After his petition was filed, plaintiff refused to undergo a psychological evaluation for use at the next scheduled parole hearing and, consequently, his release was again deferred based on that refusal. Plaintiff then amended his pleading in the present case to challenge the second deferral of his parole. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Board's initial deferral was impermissible under our decision in Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213, 924 P2d 314 (1996), and that its later order is flawed because it lacked authority to defer parole based on an inmate's refusal to undergo a psychological examination.
Plaintiff's claim regarding the first deferral is moot. Jones v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226, 968 P2d 380 (1998). Regarding his argument that the Board lacked authority to require him to undergo a psychological evaluation, we disagree. ORS 144.223(1) provides that the Board "may require any prisoner being considered for parole to be examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist before being released on parole." Plaintiff's other arguments do not require discussion.
Affirmed.