Hancock v. Board of Parole
Opinion
In 1975, petitioner was convicted on two counts of murder, and the trial court imposed two consecutive life sentences. In January, 1990, the Board of Parole entered an order setting his prison term at 360 months.1 He filed a petition for review, challenging the Board’s finding2 that consideration of the consecutive sentences as an aggravating factor is “substantiated by ORS 144.079(l)[a](D).”
The Board concedes that “it was technically inappropriate for the Board to cite the consecutive sentences as an aggravating factor under *** ORS 144.079(l)(a)(D),”3 because ORS 144.079(2)(a)4 precludes subsection (1) from being used to set a prison term, if the crime is murder. The Board argues, however, that the “Board’s motivation [for setting petitioner’s parole date] is easily deduced.” It then outlines a statutory analysis under which it could have arrived at the term that it set.
[629]*629The Board may be correct in its rationale for its decision, but its explanation does not meet the requirement of ORS 144.135 that the order state the bases for its decision. See Harris v. Board of Parole, 47 Or App 289, 301, 614 P2d 602, rev den 290 Or 157 (1980). The order shows that the Board considered the consecutive sentences as an aggravating factor under ORS 144.079(l)(a)(D). That violates ORS 144.079(2).
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
805 P.2d 751 (Hancock v. Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.