Haynes v. Board of Parole

"When a state provides a statutory process for judicial review of a parole decision, inmates have no due process right to be assisted by adequate counsel before the petition for review is denied.” See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 US 551, 555, 107 S Ct 1990, 95 L Ed 2d 539 (1987).

Petitioner sought review of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision’s (the Board) final order which denied his petition to change the terms of his life-sentence to allow for the possibility of parole. Petitioner assigned error to the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of his petition for judicial review on the basis that Petitioner’s court appointed counsel failed to file his petition within the statutory time limit mandated by ORS 144.335(4). On review, Petitioner argued that the State of Oregon created a “meaningful opportunity” to pursue judicial review part of the criminal appellate process by enacting statutes that grant the additional protection in petitions for judicial review including the assistance of counsel. Therefore, Petitioner argued that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution he was entitle to adequate assistance of counsel in filing his petition for judicial review of the Board’s order.  “When a state provides a statutory process for judicial review of a parole decision, inmates have no due process right to be assisted by adequate counsel before the petition for review is denied.” See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 US 551, 555, 107 S Ct 1990, 95 L Ed 2d 539 (1987). The Oregon Supreme Court held that allowing Petitioner to pursue review outside of the jurisdictional time limit is not an appropriate remedy to address a denial of his statutory right to counsel granted by state law because there is no due process right to judicial review. Affirmed.