Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

72 P.3d 118, 188 Or. App. 432, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 773
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision. Read the opinion of the Court — 183 Or. App. 283
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided June 26, 2003·No. A109610·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this proceeding pursuant to ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges the validity of OAR 255-050-0005(2)(c). That rule authorizes the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to postpone an inmate’s scheduled release date if the inmate refuses to participate in a psychiatric or psychological evaluation ordered by the board. Petitioner argues that the rule exceeds the board’s authority granted under ORS 144.223. Petitioner further, and alternatively, asserts that the rule is facially unconstitutional as violating state and federal constitutional provisions pertaining to free expression and protecting against compelled self-incrimination. Or Const, Art I, §§ 8, 12; US Const, Amends I, V. We have previously rejected petitioner’s statutory argument in Gholston v. Palmateer, 183 Or App 7, 51 P3d 617 (2002). We reject petitioner’s facial constitutional challenges without discussion. .

OAR 255-050-0005(2)(c) held valid.

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

Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 72 P.3d 118, 188 Or. App. 432, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 773 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

72 P.3d 118 (Lovelace v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gholston v. Palmateer
51 P.3d 617 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2002)