PER CURIAM: Cagie appeals denial petition

extraordinary relief, which challenge Parole denying him This matter before motion dismiss upon mootness. receiving motion, dismissed his counsel filed pro se response motion. asserted opening was denied

due process relied outdated assess making decision. Specifically, newer assess

Featherson v. Board of Pardons had been prepared that placed Featherson in a slightly decreased category. Accordingly, he requested that this court direct the Board “to conduct a new parole hearing based upon all accurate current information available.” In response, the Board conducted a special attention hearing on September 18, 2012, order to reconsider the case in light of the more recent assessment. At the hearing, the Board “considered all historic current material, including memorandum other submissions by Mr. current counsel, well as all reports from Prison staff . . . Sex Offender Treatment personnel.” considering this new information, the Board issued a new decision determining that Featherson “shall remain incarcerated until the maximum period of his sentence has been reached, in this case, for the remainder of his life.” “An issue appeal is considered moot the requested

judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants. When an issue is judicial policy dictates against our rendering an advisory opinion.” State v. Sims , 881 P.2d 840, 841 (Utah 1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In his Featherson re quested new hearing the new assessment. He has received this hearing. Therefore, because the Board has already provided Featherson with the relief in this court, this court can no longer issue judicial relief that can affect the rights the litigants with respect to the issue of new hearing. also alleges that Board exceeded authority by that “shall remain incarcerated until maximum period sentence has been reached, this case, remainder life.” He complains this is tantamount to sentencing prison without possibility However, this recently resolved this exact issue. See Kelly 2012 UT App 288 P.3d 39 (per curiam). In Kelly we determined “merely exercises constitutional authority commute or terminate indetermi nate that, but Board’s discretion, until period reached,” allow a *3 conclusion within discretion Board. Id. ¶ 4. Thus, did not abuse discretion it not shorten term sentence. ¶5 Dismissed part, affirmed, part.

____________________