Case Name: GILBERT C. BROWN, Petitioner on Review, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent on Review
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2001-05-04
Citations: 332 Or. 57
Docket Number: CC 96C13583; CA A100035; SC S45957
Parties: GILBERT C. BROWN, Petitioner on Review, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent on Review.
Judges: Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Leeson, and Riggs, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 332
Pages: 57–57

Head Matter:
On joint petition for reconsideration filed February 27,
joint petition for reconsideration allowed, and appellate judgment recalled; order denying review vacated and petition for review allowed; decision of Court of Appeals reversed and case remanded to Court of Appeals for further consideration May 4, 2001
GILBERT C. BROWN, Petitioner on Review, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent on Review.
(CC 96C13583; CA A100035; SC S45957)
22 P3d 766
Harrison Latto, Portland, filed the petition for petitioner on review.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the motion to recall the appellate judgment and to reconsider the order denying the petition for review. With him on the motion were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Anthony D. Bomstein, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Portland, filed the joint petition for reconsideration.
Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Leeson, and Riggs, Justices.
Appeal from Marion County Circuit Court, Joseph V. Ochoa, Judge. 157 Or App 187, 966 P2d.831 (1998).
Van Hoomissen, J., retired December 31, 2000, and did not participate in the decision of this case. Kulongoski and De Muniz, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The joint petition for reconsideration is allowed, and the appellate judgment is recalled. The order denying review is vacated, and the petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180, 998 P2d 661 (2000).