Benton v. State Board of Parole

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Benton v. State Board of Parole

769 P.2d 214, 95 Or. App. 237, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 189

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 22, 1989

DocketCA A48226

StatusPublished

This text of 769 P.2d 214 (Benton v. State Board of Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benton v. State Board of Parole, 769 P.2d 214, 95 Or. App. 237, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 189 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDSON, P. J.

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole. He contends that the order was dated March 4, 1988, and that his petition for review filed with this court on April 29,1988, is timely. We dismiss the petition, because it was not filed within the time allowed by ORS 144.335.

Petitioner was incarcerated at the Oregon State Penitentiary in 1981 on a seven-year sentence. He escaped in June, 1985, and was recaptured. On January 28, 1986, the Board set a new parole release date for petitioner. On June 4, 1986, the Board issued an order that paroled petitioner to the State of Georgia to serve a sentence there and that imposed certain conditions of parole, including that he was to report to an Oregon parole office when he was released from the Georgia sentence. It also required him to serve one year of supervised parole in Oregon after his release. Petitioner refused to sign the order and was informed that he was subject to its terms whether he signed it or not.

Petitioner did not report as required on his release from the Georgia prison in August, 1987. He was arrested on an Oregon warrant for a parole violation in October, 1987. The Board hearings officer determined that he had not knowingly violated the conditions of parole and reinstated the one-year supervised parole condition.

On March 4,1988, after the parole violation hearing, petitioner actually signed the 1986 probation order and he contends that that is the date that it became effective. He is wrong; the order became effective when it was signed on June 4,1986, by the chairperson of the Board. Petitioner challenges the conditions imposed in 1986. To do that he had to have filed a petition for review within 60 days of the order. ORS 144.335(2), His petition for review was filed almost two years too late.

Petition for judicial review dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICHARDSON, P. J.

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole. He contends that the order was dated March 4, 1988, and that his petition for review filed with this court on April 29,1988, is timely. We dismiss the petition, because it was not filed within the time allowed by ORS 144.335.

Petitioner was incarcerated at the Oregon State Penitentiary in 1981 on a seven-year sentence. He escaped in June, 1985, and was recaptured. On January 28, 1986, the Board set a new parole release date for petitioner. On June 4, 1986, the Board issued an order that paroled petitioner to the State of Georgia to serve a sentence there and that imposed certain conditions of parole, including that he was to report to an Oregon parole office when he was released from the Georgia sentence. It also required him to serve one year of supervised parole in Oregon after his release. Petitioner refused to sign the order and was informed that he was subject to its terms whether he signed it or not.

Petitioner did not report as required on his release from the Georgia prison in August, 1987. He was arrested on an Oregon warrant for a parole violation in October, 1987. The Board hearings officer determined that he had not knowingly violated the conditions of parole and reinstated the one-year supervised parole condition.

On March 4,1988, after the parole violation hearing, petitioner actually signed the 1986 probation order and he contends that that is the date that it became effective. He is wrong; the order became effective when it was signed on June 4,1986, by the chairperson of the Board. Petitioner challenges the conditions imposed in 1986. To do that he had to have filed a petition for review within 60 days of the order. ORS 144.335(2), His petition for review was filed almost two years too late.

Petition for judicial review dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 P.2d 214, 95 Or. App. 237, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-v-state-board-of-parole-orctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack