Dingman v. Board of Parole

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Dingman v. Board of Parole

835 P.2d 958, 114 Or. App. 516, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1517

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 5, 1992

DocketCA A66733

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 835 P.2d 958 (Dingman v. 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

Dingman v. Board of Parole, 835 P.2d 958, 114 Or. App. 516, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1517 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions for his parole. Because petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies, we have jurisdiction to review the order. Owens v. Board of Parole, 113 Or App 507, 510, 834 P2d 547 (1992).

Petitioner challenges the condition barring him from entering or residing in Polk or Yamhill counties during the period of parole supervision. We conclude that the Board erred in imposing that condition.

Although we assume that the Board’s purpose was the protection of the public, the condition is broader than necessary to accomplish the purposes of protecting the public and reforming petitioner. ORS 137.540(2). The Board did not require the geographical restriction in its initial order. It was added by subsequent Board action. No reason was given for the modification. The protective concern was addressed in the parole condition that petitioner not have any contact with the victim or the victim’s family. On this record, because there is no showing that petitioner poses a potential threat not already addressed by other parole conditions, the restriction is unnecessarily broad. Owens v. Board of Parole, supra, 113 Or App at 511-12. See also State v. Ferre, 84 Or App 459, 461-62, 734 P2d 888 (1987).

Condition of parole prohibiting petitioner from entering or residing in Polk or Yamhill counties vacated; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions for his parole. Because petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies, we have jurisdiction to review the order. Owens v. Board of Parole, 113 Or App 507, 510, 834 P2d 547 (1992).

Petitioner challenges the condition barring him from entering or residing in Polk or Yamhill counties during the period of parole supervision. We conclude that the Board erred in imposing that condition.

Although we assume that the Board’s purpose was the protection of the public, the condition is broader than necessary to accomplish the purposes of protecting the public and reforming petitioner. ORS 137.540(2). The Board did not require the geographical restriction in its initial order. It was added by subsequent Board action. No reason was given for the modification. The protective concern was addressed in the parole condition that petitioner not have any contact with the victim or the victim’s family. On this record, because there is no showing that petitioner poses a potential threat not already addressed by other parole conditions, the restriction is unnecessarily broad. Owens v. Board of Parole, supra, 113 Or App at 511-12. See also State v. Ferre, 84 Or App 459, 461-62, 734 P2d 888 (1987).

Condition of parole prohibiting petitioner from entering or residing in Polk or Yamhill counties vacated; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 P.2d 958, 114 Or. App. 516, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dingman-v-board-of-parole-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack