Periodic parole consideration hearings for dangerous offenders
- setting of parole date
- information to be considered
Source:
Section 144.228 — Periodic parole consideration hearings for dangerous offenders; setting of parole date; information to be considered, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors144.html.
Notes of Decisions
Where defendant was sentenced to 15-year minimum sentence under dangerous offender statute, Board of Parole properly set parole consideration date at 15 years after defendant began serving sentence. Teague v. Board of Parole, 105 Or App 1, 803 P2d 279 (1990), Sup Ct review denied; Allred v. Board of Parole, 124 Or App 278, 862 P2d 546 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Where board votes to sustain minimum sentence of dangerous offender found to be in remission, parole consideration hearing date becomes parole release date. Smith v. Board of Parole, 126 Or App 563, 869 P2d 878 (1994)
Procedural change eliminating fixed period for dangerous offender parole reviews is not ex post facto increase in punishment for offense. Scott v. Baldwin, 225 F3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2000)
Prisoner bears burden of persuading State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that evidence before board meets substantive standard for giving prisoner release date. Davis v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 341 Or 442, 144 P3d 931 (2006)
Where board decides to not establish release date, findings justifying decision are not required. Guzek v. Board of Parole, 222 Or App 81, 191 P3d 800 (2008), Sup Ct review denied
As used in this section, “reasonable cause” authorizes Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to exercise discretion and establish standard, within confines of general policy of reasonable cause and this section, to determine whether prisoner is entitled to parole consideration hearing. Nulph v. Board of Parole, 279 Or App 652, 381 P3d 948 (2016)
Where petitioner was found to continue to suffer from substance dependency and mixed personality disorder, to have not followed treatment recommendations and to present significant risk of committing additional violent, sexual acts but did not display specific symptoms in hearing, Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision did not err in deferring parole consideration because board is not limited to considering specific symptoms displayed only during hearing to determine whether, under 1985 version of this section, “condition which made the prisoner dangerous is absent or in remission.” Bell v. Board of Parole, 283 Or App 711, 391 P3d 907 (2017), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date