Legal Opinion

Curry v. Palmateer

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 2, 2003No. 01-35949; D.C. No. CV-99-00616-COPublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

Even if the district court erred in finding procedural default (which we do not decide), we nonetheless affirm on the merits because the 1995 amendment to Oregon Revised Statutes (O.R.S.) § 137.370 merely codified pre-existing Oregon case law, which clearly held that O.R.S. § 137.370(2)(a) does not authorize credit for pre-sentence time served on an unrelated sentence. See Chambers v. Maass, 92 Or.App. 283, 758 P.2d 393, 393-94 (1988). The petitioner’s attempt to distinguish Chambers on the ground that it involved consecutive sentences is unavailing; Chambers did not turn on…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Nissel v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Randolph v. Dept. of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. Chambers v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API