Turner v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Turner v. Thompson

968 P.2d 858, 157 Or. App. 182, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 1977

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 4, 1998

Docket96C-13755; CA A99354

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 968 P.2d 858 (Turner v. Thompson) 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

Turner v. Thompson, 968 P.2d 858, 157 Or. App. 182, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 1977 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, seeks review of the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court erred in various respects. For the following reasons, we affirm.

In this action, plaintiff challenged the validity of a Board of Parole order deferring his release date from May 1995 to May 1997 on the basis of a psychological evaluation. After his petition was filed, plaintiff refused to undergo a psychological evaluation for use at the next scheduled parole hearing and, consequently, his release was again deferred based on that refusal. Plaintiff then amended his pleading in the present case to challenge the second deferral of his parole. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Board’s initial deferral was impermissible under our decision in Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213, 924 P2d 314 (1996), and that its later order is flawed because it lacked authority to defer parole based on an inmate’s refusal to undergo a psychological examination.

Plaintiff’s claim regarding the first deferral is moot. Jones v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226, 968 P2d 380 (1998). Regarding his argument that the Board lacked authority to require him to undergo a psychological evaluation, we disagree. ORS 144.223(1) provides that the Board “may require any prisoner being considered for parole to be examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist before being released on parole.” Plaintiff’s other arguments do not require discussion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, seeks review of the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court erred in various respects. For the following reasons, we affirm.

In this action, plaintiff challenged the validity of a Board of Parole order deferring his release date from May 1995 to May 1997 on the basis of a psychological evaluation. After his petition was filed, plaintiff refused to undergo a psychological evaluation for use at the next scheduled parole hearing and, consequently, his release was again deferred based on that refusal. Plaintiff then amended his pleading in the present case to challenge the second deferral of his parole. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Board’s initial deferral was impermissible under our decision in Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213, 924 P2d 314 (1996), and that its later order is flawed because it lacked authority to defer parole based on an inmate’s refusal to undergo a psychological examination.

Plaintiff’s claim regarding the first deferral is moot. Jones v. Thompson, 156 Or App 226, 968 P2d 380 (1998). Regarding his argument that the Board lacked authority to require him to undergo a psychological evaluation, we disagree. ORS 144.223(1) provides that the Board “may require any prisoner being considered for parole to be examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist before being released on parole.” Plaintiff’s other arguments do not require discussion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

968 P.2d 858, 157 Or. App. 182, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 1977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-thompson-orctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack