Janowski v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Janowski v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION

202 P.3d 920, 226 Or. App. 82, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 74

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 18, 2009

DocketA130409

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 P.3d 920 (Janowski v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION) 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

Janowski v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, 202 P.3d 920, 226 Or. App. 82, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 74 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*83 PER CURIAM

Petitioner, who received a life sentence for two aggravated murders committed in 1985, challenges an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision in which the board found that petitioner had satisfied his burden under ORS 163.105 (1985) 1 of showing that he was “likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time” and converted petitioner’s sentence to life in prison with the possibility of parole or work release. However, because the board concluded that it lacked the authority to release petitioner until he had completed serving the 30-year minimum sentence imposed by the sentencing court under ORS 163.105 (1985), it set a projected parole release date of May 2015. On review, petitioner initially argues that “[t]he board erred when it found that it lacked the authority to override the 30-year judicial minimum sentence.” Petitioner’s assignment of error is controlled by our reasoning and the legislative history discussed in Fleming v. Board of Parole, 225 Or App 578, 202 P3d 209 (2009), and, for the reasons set forth in Fleming, we reverse and remand this case so that the board may reevaluate which, if any, of its authorizing statutes may properly be applied to petitioner’s circumstances, in light of our interpretation of ORS 163.105 (1985).

Petitioner also argues that, after he became eligible for parole under ORS 163.105 (1985), the board’s rules required it to set a parole release date within petitioner’s matrix range of 120 to 168 months. Because petitioner has served more than 168 months, he contends that he is entitled to immediate release on parole. We conclude that that issue must be addressed on remand once the board determines which, if any, of its authorizing statutes are applicable to petitioner’s circumstances.

Reversed and remanded.

1

In 1984, Oregon voters amended ORS 163.105 (1983) through Ballot Measure 7, which became effective on December 6,1984. Or Laws 1985, ch 3.

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

*83 PER CURIAM

Petitioner, who received a life sentence for two aggravated murders committed in 1985, challenges an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision in which the board found that petitioner had satisfied his burden under ORS 163.105 (1985) 1 of showing that he was “likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time” and converted petitioner’s sentence to life in prison with the possibility of parole or work release. However, because the board concluded that it lacked the authority to release petitioner until he had completed serving the 30-year minimum sentence imposed by the sentencing court under ORS 163.105 (1985), it set a projected parole release date of May 2015. On review, petitioner initially argues that “[t]he board erred when it found that it lacked the authority to override the 30-year judicial minimum sentence.” Petitioner’s assignment of error is controlled by our reasoning and the legislative history discussed in Fleming v. Board of Parole, 225 Or App 578, 202 P3d 209 (2009), and, for the reasons set forth in Fleming, we reverse and remand this case so that the board may reevaluate which, if any, of its authorizing statutes may properly be applied to petitioner’s circumstances, in light of our interpretation of ORS 163.105 (1985).

Petitioner also argues that, after he became eligible for parole under ORS 163.105 (1985), the board’s rules required it to set a parole release date within petitioner’s matrix range of 120 to 168 months. Because petitioner has served more than 168 months, he contends that he is entitled to immediate release on parole. We conclude that that issue must be addressed on remand once the board determines which, if any, of its authorizing statutes are applicable to petitioner’s circumstances.

Reversed and remanded.

1

In 1984, Oregon voters amended ORS 163.105 (1983) through Ballot Measure 7, which became effective on December 6,1984. Or Laws 1985, ch 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 P.3d 920, 226 Or. App. 82, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janowski-v-board-of-parole-and-post-prison-supervision-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack