Gordon v. State Board of Parole

615 P.2d 1191, 48 Or. App. 25, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3279
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided September 2, 1980·No. No. 110,939, CA 16462·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

RICHARDSON, J.

Petitioner, an inmate of the Oregon State Penitentiary, sought habeas corpus relief, ORS 34.310 et seq., alleging that the board of parole’s application of the parole matrix system, ORS 144.780-144.785, to his sentence resulted in his being incarcerated subject to an ex post facto law, Art I, § 10, United States Constitution; Art I, § 21, Oregon Constitution. Defendant’s demurrer on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was sustained and petitioner appeals.

In May, 1976, petitioner was given a parole hearing and received a parole date of May, 2006. In May, 1978, petitioner was informed that a new parole date was established under the parole matrix system and that he would not be released until 2008.

Petitioner could have sought judicial review of the board’s decision and raised his constitutional arguments there. Harris v. Board of Parole, 47 Or App 289, 614 P2d 602 (1980). Given the availability of an alternative remedy, habeas corpus relief was improper, Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 581 P2d 934 (1978), and the circuit court correctly granted defendant’s demurrer. Cf., Sterling v. Blalock, 47 Or App 275, 614 P2d 610 (1980).

Affirmed.

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

Gordon v. State Board of Parole, 615 P.2d 1191, 48 Or. App. 25, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3279 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

615 P.2d 1191 (Gordon v. State Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meadows v. Schiedler
924 P.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1996)
Billings v. Maass
738 P.2d 222 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1987)