Case Name: EDWARD VAUGHN, Appellant, v. Dan JOHNSON, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1996-09-11
Citations: 143 Or. App. 481
Docket Number: 951227697M; CA A91453
Parties: EDWARD VAUGHN, Appellant, v. Dan JOHNSON, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Respondent.
Judges: Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 143
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs July 3,
affirmed September 11, 1996
EDWARD VAUGHN, Appellant, v. Dan JOHNSON, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Respondent.
(951227697M; CA A91453)
923 P2d 1315
Garrett A. Richardson filed the brief for appellant.
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Stephen L. Madkour, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff sought habeas corpus relief, alleging that his "due process" rights were violated by an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) denying him parole. The trial court dismissed the petition. We find no error.
Plaintiffs allegation that the Board relied on "faulty information" in the psychological report related only to collateral facts; he did not challenge facts reaching the substance of the report. His allegations that the Board discounted the weight of the evidence in his favor, failed to consider whether he could be controlled, and rejected his release plan are challenges to determinations within the discretion of the Board. It is unclear what plaintiff is alleging by his assertion that ORS 144.125(3)(a) does not provide "guidance" because it does not show what the Board "expects of plaintiff to qualify for release." The statute does provide a standard, and plaintiff did not allege that the Board applied the wrong version of ORS 144.125 to his case. See Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213, 924 P2d 314 (1996). Even considering plaintiffs petition liberally, he failed to allege facts that showed that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562, 770 P2d 909 (1989).
Affirmed.