Court Opinion

ID: 9518049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:41:39.517451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:08.063415
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge McGINLEY.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that Counsel failed to provide substantial reasons for concluding that the January 31, 2008, recalculation order was rendered moot by a subsequent order which extended Hughes’s maximum date by three months. Counsel stated in his letter, “Additionally, although the appeal to the recalculated maximum sentence was timely, the subsequent decision mailed April 14, 2008, presented a new calculation. Therefore, his February 28, 2008, administrative appeal was dismissed as moot. Petitioner [Hughes] never appealed the April 14, 2008, recalculation order.” Letter *28from Kent D. Watkins, October 6, 2008, at 4. Once the new calculation of the maximum date was announced by the Board, this new calculation rendered Hughes’s challenge to the January 31, 2008, recalculation order moot. Counsel was terse in his explanation but he did set forth the reason the request for administrative relief was moot. I would grant the petition to withdraw and affirm on the merits.
President Judge LEADBETTER and Judge LEAVITT join in this dissent.