Oregon Supreme Ct - Sept. 14, 2014
by: Abassos and Francis Gieringer • September 14, 2014 • no comments
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Amendments to ORS 144.335(3), stating the criterion for judicial review of decisions made by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, did not exempt the Board from providing “substantial reasons” under ORS 144.125 for orders postponing a prisoner’s scheduled release date. Here, those requirements were met when the order stated 1) the statute and rule under which the board made its decision, 2) “the criteria that the board was required to address under the statute,” and 3) reference to the facts and a psychiatrist’s report that the Board used to make its decision. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S061812.pdf Jenkins v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision], 356 Or 186 (2014). | Amendments to ORS 144.335(3), stating the criterion for judicial review of decisions made by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, did not exempt the Board from providing “substantial reasons” under ORS 144.125 for orders postponing a prisoner’s scheduled release date. Here, those requirements were met when the order stated 1) the statute and rule under which the board made its decision, 2) “the criteria that the board was required to address under the statute,” and 3) reference to the facts and a psychiatrist’s report that the Board used to make its decision. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S061812.pdf Jenkins v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision], 356 Or 186 (2014). | ||
| − | {{wl-publish: 2014-09- | + | {{wl-publish: 2014-09-14 20:07:44 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} |
| − | {{wl-publish: 2014-09- | + | {{wl-publish: 2014-09-14 20:07:44 -0700 | Francis Gieringer }} |
Latest revision as of 11:15, October 1, 2014
Parole Board Decisions Postponing Release Are Subject to Judicial Review
Amendments to ORS 144.335(3), stating the criterion for judicial review of decisions made by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, did not exempt the Board from providing “substantial reasons” under ORS 144.125 for orders postponing a prisoner’s scheduled release date. Here, those requirements were met when the order stated 1) the statute and rule under which the board made its decision, 2) “the criteria that the board was required to address under the statute,” and 3) reference to the facts and a psychiatrist’s report that the Board used to make its decision. Jenkins v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 356 Or 186 (2014).
