Case Name: RANDELL WAYNE BROWN, Petitioner on review, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent on review
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1987-08-04
Citations: 303 Or. 680
Docket Number: CA A41614; SC S33870
Parties: RANDELL WAYNE BROWN, Petitioner on review, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent on review.
Judges: PER CURIAM
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 303
Pages: 680–682

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted June 3,
affirmed August 4,
reconsideration denied October 20,1987
RANDELL WAYNE BROWN, Petitioner on review, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent on review.
(CA A41614; SC S33870)
740 P2d 778
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

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner was convicted for the crime of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
At petitioner's prison term hearing, the Board of Parole (Board) established a history/risk score of 11 under crime category 7 subdivision 1, with a matrix range of 120 to 160 months and set petitioner at 168 months with a release date of April 28,1999. Petitioner appealed from the final order of the Board, which the Court of Appeals affirmed from the bench.
Petitioner seeks review, alleging that the Board failed to satisfy the requirements of ORS 144.135, but claims no specific error. Petitioner's procedural contentions are answered in Anderson v. Board of Parole, 303 Or 618, 740 P2d 760 (1987).
Petitioner also asserts that the Board failed to consider factors of mitigation. But petitioner points out no mitigating circumstances in his appellate brief, simply setting forth six pages of transcript from the Board hearing. He apparently is complaining that he was not guilty of the crime, contending that he did not kill his wife. The denial of guilt is not a mitigating factor.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.