Christenson v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Christenson v. Thompson

923 P.2d 1316, 143 Or. App. 483, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1370

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 11, 1996

Docket95C-10949; CA A89650

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 923 P.2d 1316 (Christenson v. Thompson) 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

Christenson v. Thompson, 923 P.2d 1316, 143 Or. App. 483, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1370 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

*484 PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) had applied the 1993 version of ORS 144.125 in determining his parole release date, although he had committed his offense in January 1987. He alleged that in doing so, the Board violated constitutional ex post facto protections. 1 Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that there was no ex post facto violation, and plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s argument. After hearing arguments, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Application of ORS 144.125(3)(a) (1993) to a prisoner whose offense was committed before the effective date of that statute violates ex post facto protections. Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213, 924 P2d 314 (1996). The court erred in dismissing plaintiffs petition.

Reversed and remanded.

1

We have rejected plaintiffs argument made to the trial court that denial of direct judicial review of the Board’s decision violated ex post facto and due process protections. Shelby v. Board of Parole, 140 Or App 102, 915 P2d 414, rev den 324 Or 18 (1996).

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

*484 PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) had applied the 1993 version of ORS 144.125 in determining his parole release date, although he had committed his offense in January 1987. He alleged that in doing so, the Board violated constitutional ex post facto protections. 1 Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that there was no ex post facto violation, and plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s argument. After hearing arguments, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Application of ORS 144.125(3)(a) (1993) to a prisoner whose offense was committed before the effective date of that statute violates ex post facto protections. Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213, 924 P2d 314 (1996). The court erred in dismissing plaintiffs petition.

Reversed and remanded.

1

We have rejected plaintiffs argument made to the trial court that denial of direct judicial review of the Board’s decision violated ex post facto and due process protections. Shelby v. Board of Parole, 140 Or App 102, 915 P2d 414, rev den 324 Or 18 (1996).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

923 P.2d 1316, 143 Or. App. 483, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christenson-v-thompson-orctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack