Curry v. Palmateer

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 whether the sentences were consecutive, but on whether the “time spent in custody [was] the result of the [instant] charge.” Id. at 393 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Nissel v. Pearce, 307 Or. 102, 764 P.2d 224 (1988); Randolph v. Oregon Dept. of Corr., 139 Or.App. 79, 910 P.2d 1171 (1996). Chamber’s sentences, like Curry’s sentences here, simply fit within that general rule. AFFIRMED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.