Haynes v. Board of Parole
S064442
| Or. | Oct 5, 2017Background
- Petitioner Michael Haynes, serving life without parole for aggravated murder, sought a "murder-review" under ORS 163.105 to convert his sentence to life with possibility of parole; the Board denied relief and issued a final order.
- ORS 144.335 permits judicial review of board final orders but requires a petition to be filed in the Court of Appeals within 60 days of mailing.
- ORS 144.337(1) requires the Public Defense Services Commission to provide representation for financially eligible persons seeking such review.
- Haynes obtained appointed counsel from OPDS, but counsel filed the petition for judicial review six days late due to a calendaring error.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as untimely (jurisdictional defect); Haynes sought relief in the Oregon Supreme Court arguing (1) statutory right to adequate counsel was violated and (2) due process requires allowance of a late filing.
- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that excusing the jurisdictional deadline is not an appropriate state-law remedy and that federal due process does not require allowing a delayed review in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory appointment of counsel (ORS 144.337(1)) implies a right to "adequate" counsel for judicial review | Haynes: statutory right to counsel implies right to adequate counsel; denial (late filing) should be remedied by allowing late petition | Board: statute provides representation but does not create an exception to jurisdictional time limits; timeliness is jurisdictional | Court assumed remedyable statutory right need not be decided; but even if denial occurred, allowing a late filing is not an appropriate remedy under state law |
| Whether equitable or common-law principles allow courts to excuse the 60-day filing deadline when delay is counsel’s fault | Haynes: equity (and Geist precedent) permits courts to fashion procedures (e.g., allow late filing) to vindicate statutory right | Board: filing deadline is jurisdictional; no authority to override legislature’s time limit by equity | Court: no equitable power to create an exception to statuteally conferred appellate jurisdiction; statute contains no exception |
| Whether Evitts/Shipman-type relief applies (i.e., delayed review when counsel’s neglect prevents appeal) | Haynes: murder-review akin to criminal appellate process; analogous relief should be given for counsel’s culpable neglect | Board: Shipman/Evitts rely on constitutional right to effective counsel on direct criminal appeal and statutory remedial schemes not present here | Court: Shipman/Evitts inapplicable—those cases rest on constitutional right to effective assistance in appeals as of right and on statutory post-conviction remedies, neither of which exist here |
| Whether Fourteenth Amendment due process requires allowing late judicial review when appointed counsel’s error causes untimely filing | Haynes: state-created right to judicial review plus statutory counsel means due process forbids denial based on counsel’s calendaring error | Board: no federal due process right to counsel for collateral/parole-review proceedings; statutory counsel is state-created only | Court: Although ORS 163.105 creates a protected liberty interest, Swarthout/Finley/Wainwright show minimal due process applies and no federal right to counsel in this non-criminal-appellate, statutory review; due process does not require a delayed review |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Geist, 310 Or 176 (1990) (court recognized that a statutory right to counsel may entail a right to adequate counsel and that court may fashion procedures to vindicate that right)
- Dept. of Human Services v. T.L., 358 Or 679 (2016) (court refined when statutory appointment of counsel requires adequacy based on proceeding’s nature)
- Janowski/Fleming v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 432 (2010) (analyzed parole statutory/regulatory framework relevant to effect of murder-review decisions)
- Shipman v. Gladden, 253 Or 192 (1969) (allowed delayed appellate relief where counsel’s neglect deprived criminal defendant of constitutional appellate rights)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (Federal due process requires effective assistance of counsel on appeals as of right)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (no federal due process right to counsel for collateral post-conviction proceedings created by state statute)
- Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586 (1982) (no constitutional right to counsel for discretionary appeals)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) (Due Process in parole context requires only minimal process: opportunity to be heard and statement of reasons)
- Ososke v. DMV, 320 Or 657 (1995) (untimely petition for judicial review is a jurisdictional defect)
- 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 301 Or 622 (1986) (Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction to review agency orders is purely statutory and depends on timely filing)