Hearing required on revocation
- procedure
Source:
Section 144.343 — Hearing required on revocation; procedure, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors144.html.
Notes of Decisions
A parolee has a constitutional right to an on-site hearing by which a person other than the parole officer who recommends revocation can decide whether there is probable cause to revoke, and a parolee who is denied such a hearing must be granted relief if he suffered prejudice as a result of that denial. Huckaby v. Newell, 16 Or App 581, 519 P2d 1290 (1974)
Where inmate is granted parole but has not been scheduled for release, revocation does not entail procedural requirements that would apply if inmate were in parole status. Boyd v. Board of Parole, 23 Or App 266, 541 P2d 1068 (1975)
Where board refers to record submitted by hearings officer, written statement of evidence relied upon is not required. Sandersfeld v. Oregon State Board of Parole, 25 Or App 323, 548 P2d 1333 (1976)
Where board impliedly adopts findings of fact by hearings officer, recital of findings of fact is not required. Sandersfeld v. Oregon State Board of Parole, 25 Or App 323, 548 P2d 1333 (1976)
Where Board revoked parole by order which merely gave notice of entitlement to review of order, parolee was not afforded full due process hearing contemplated by this section. Erickson v. Board of Parole, 34 Or App 323, 578 P2d 499 (1978)
Where there were no complex issues or substantial mitigating factors to be presented in parole revocation hearing, it was not abuse of discretion for Board of Parole to deny appointment of counsel, despite parolee’s assertion that he was “incapable of speaking effectively for himself.” Ritchie v. Board of Parole, 35 Or App 711, 583 P2d 1 (1978), on reconsideration 37 Or App 385, 587 P2d 1036 (1978)
Where petitioner neither denied that he violated conditions of parole nor presented any reason justifying appointment of counsel, Board of Parole did not err in denying request for appointed counsel for revocation hearing. Asher v. State Board of Parole, 100 Or App 592, 786 P2d 1323 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Notice of hearing right regarding revocation need not inform violator of possible consequences of revocation that may arise in later proceedings. Woolstrum v. Board of Parole, 141 Or App 332, 918 P2d 112 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Ability of board to revoke parole and require violator to serve remainder of sentence is not subject to limitations of parole revocation rules adopted under ORS 144.346. Kessler v. Board of Parole, 145 Or App 584, 931 P2d 801 (1997)
Where parole condition requires person to obey all municipal, county, state and federal laws, fact that person has been arrested does not establish probable cause to believe person has violated condition. Mageske v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 173 Or App 209, 21 P3d 150 (2001)
Relevance of information in proceeding for alleged parole violation is determined using definition of relevance set forth in Oregon Evidence Code. O’Hara v. Board of Parole, 346 Or 41, 203 P3d 213 (2009)
Attorney General Opinions
Requirement on state to furnish legal counsel to indigent parolee during revocation proceeding, (1982) Vol. 42, p 232
Law Review Citations
53 OLR 67-79 (1973)
Up to date