Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


Rivas v. Persson

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 05-30-2013
Case #: A149716
Hadlock, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149716.pdf

Post-Conviction Relief: Credit for time served has no bearing on when an inmate will be released after the release date has passed. Instead, the ultimate release date is determined exclusively through the parole consideration process.

Rivas appealed trial court’s ruling dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision had failed to fully credit him for time served following his arrest. The trial court denied the petition after concluding that plaintiff's remedy properly lies in post-conviction relief. In the mandamus action, Rivas contends the Department of Corrections (DOC) had a legal duty to credit him with time served before sentencing. Rivas was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years in prison without parole for aggravated murder and first-degree robbery. In 2006 it was determined that he was entitled to 946 days of credit for time served. In 2010, the sentence was converted to life with the possibility of parole. A projected parole release date of June 3, 2012 was set after factoring in credit days. Rivas contends that DOC should have also credited him for 1,568 additional days and he should be immediately released. The action was brought in August 2011. The Court of Appeals held that if the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision erred by setting an initial projected release date too far in the future, and the date that it should have set has already passed, the inmate does not receive a windfall in the form of release without the board first having the opportunity to determine whether there are reasons to postpone release. Once the matrix release date has passed, credit for time served no longer has any bearing on when the inmate will be released. Instead, that ultimate release date is determined exclusively through the parole consideration process. Because the Court’s decision would not have a practical effect, the matter is moot. Dismissed.