Case Name: WILLIAM ROY HAYNES, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-06-17
Citations: 229 Or. App. 178
Docket Number: A139126
Parties: WILLIAM ROY HAYNES, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 229
Pages: 178–179

Head Matter:
Submitted May 1,
OAR 255-032-0010(3) held valid June 17, 2009
WILLIAM ROY HAYNES, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
A139126
210 P3d 927
William Roy Haynes filed the brief pro se.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Jeremy C. Rice, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Pursuant to ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges OAR 255-032-0010(3), a rule adopted by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. That rule provides, in part, that "[t]he minimum period of confinement for a person sentenced to life for Murder under ORS 163.115 committed on or after June 30, 1995, shall be twenty-five (25) years." According to petitioner, the rule violates Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution because it subjects persons convicted of murder between June 30, 1995 and October 23, 1999, to the same punishment (a minimum of 25 years in prison) as someone convicted of the more serious crime of aggravated murder during that same period. We have considered petitioner's arguments and conclude that discussion of them would be of no benefit to the bench, the bar, or the public; the rule does not violate Article I, section 16, as petitioner contends.
OAR 255-032-0010(3) held valid.