A. Persons in the custody of the Department of Corrections sentenced for crimes committed prior to July 1, 1998, who meet the following guidelines may be considered by the Pardon and Parole Board for a specialized parole: 1. a. who are within one (1) year of projected release date and are serving a sentence for a crime listed in Schedule A, B, C, D or D-1 on the main sentencing matrix or S-1, S-2 or S-3 on the sex crimes matrix; or b. who are within two (2) years of projected release date and are serving a sentence for an offense that is in a different schedule of the main matrix or is on the drug crimes or intoxicant crimes involving a vehicle matrix; and 2. Who have completed at least one of the following: a. general education diploma, or b. adult literacy program, or c. residential substance abuse program, or d. participation in a prison public works program for ninety (90) consecutive days, or e. a vocational-technical education program, or f. other educational or rehabilitation program available in the department; and 3. Who are not incarcerated for an offense for which parole is prohibited pursuant to law. B. Upon an inmate becoming eligible for specialized parole it shall be the duty of the Pardon and Parole Board, with or without application being made, to cause an examination to be made of the criminal record of the inmate and to make inquiry into the conduct and the record of the inmate during confinement in the custody of the Department of Corrections. C. Upon a favorable finding by the Pardon and Parole Board, the Board shall recommend to the Governor that the inmate be placed on
specialized parole. If approved by the Governor, notification shall be made to the Department of Corrections that said inmate has been placed on specialized parole. D. Prior to the placement of an inmate on specialized parole, the Pardon and Parole Board shall provide written notification to the sheriff and district attorney of the county in which any person on specialized parole is to be placed and to the chief law enforcement officer of any incorporated city or town in which said person is to be placed of the placement of the person on specialized parole within the county or incorporated city or town. The Board also shall provide written notification of the placement of the person on specialized parole within the county or incorporated city or town to any victim of the crime for which the inmate was convicted by mailing the notification to the last-known address of the victim, if such information is requested by the victim. The Board shall not give the address of the inmate to any victim of the crime for which the inmate was convicted. Added by Laws 1988, c. 310, § 8, operative July 1, 1988. Amended by Laws 1989, c. 306, § 1, emerg. eff. May 25, 1989; Laws 1990, c. 105, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1990; Laws 1991, c. 291, § 13, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 1993, c. 125, § 7, emerg. eff. April 29, 1993; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 28, eff. July 1, 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1991–2012 · leading case:
Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2005).
Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 365 (C), (D) (1995).”
Powell v. Ray, 301 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Powell a certificate of appealability on his claim that the 1997 amendments to Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 365 , violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.”
Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, 942 P.2d 736.
· cites it 2× “See 57 O.S.1991, § 365; 21 O.S.1991, § 443. Two problems surface immediately with the State's position.”
Fields v. Driesel, 1997 OK CR 33, 941 P.2d 1000.
· cites it 2× “57 O.S.Supp.1996, § 365(F). Similarly, placement of an inmate in the EMP is not the equivalent of parole or discharge from a lawful sentence.”
Jackson v. Standifird, 503 F. App'x 623 (10th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “He asserted (1) the parole board’s action was an abuse of discretion, infringing upon his due process right to be free from arbitrary government action; (2) the Oklahoma legislature’s use of the word “may” in the statute governing parole, Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 365 , is…”
Barnett v. Moon, 852 P.2d 161 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Petitioner contended he was removed from the Preparóle Conditional Supervision Program (PPCS), codified by 57 O.S.1991, § 365, without due process as required by Morrissey v.”
Koch v. Daniels, 296 F. App'x 621 (10th Cir. 2008).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 365 . Under the new regime, only inmates within one or two years of their projected release dates are eligible for specialized parole.”
Harper v. Young, 852 P.2d 164 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993).
“*165 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Petitioner Ernest Eugene Harper filed an application in this Court for a writ of habe-as corpus, alleging the Department of Corrections (DOC) released him from custody under the provisions of the Preparóle Conditional…”
Scales v. Walters, 905 P.2d 233 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995).
“Appellant’s petition also challenged inaction by Ap-pellees on Appellant’s request to be considered for the Preparóle Conditional Supervision Program, 57 O.S.Supp.1993 § 365. The trial court denied all requested relief.”
Durbin v. Klinger, No. 98-6332 (10th Cir. Dec. 24, 1998).
“Specifically, he claimed that because he had been considered for parole under the Act, he no longer qualified for pre- parole consideration under Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 365. 3 R. Vol. I, Doc.”
McNeil v. Greenway, 815 P.2d 1202 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
“Further, we find no merit to Appellant’s contention that the Department of Corrections adherence to 57 O.S.Supp.1990, § 365, is an improper imposition of an ex post facto law to him.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 365(A): 1 case
Barnett v. Moon, 852 P.2d 161 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993).
“Petitioner contended he was removed from the Preparóle Conditional Supervision Program (PPCS), codified by 57 O.S.1991, § 365, without due process as required by Morrissey v.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 365(F): 1 case
Fields v. Driesel, 1997 OK CR 33, 941 P.2d 1000.
“57 O.S.Supp.1996, § 365(F). Similarly, placement of an inmate in the EMP is not the equivalent of parole or discharge from a lawful sentence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.