144.106
Violation of post-prison supervision conditions; sanctions. (1) Except as otherwise provided
by rules of the Department of Corrections and the State Board of Parole and
Post-Prison Supervision concerning parole and post-prison supervision
violators, the supervisory authority shall use a continuum of administrative
sanctions for violations of the conditions of post-prison supervision.
(2) The sanction
continuum shall include adjustments to the level of supervision and, as
approved by the board or the local supervisory authority that imposed the
initial conditions of post-prison supervision:
(a) Modification
of or additions to the conditions of supervision; and
(b) Any other
appropriate available local sanctions including, but not limited to, jail,
community service work, house arrest, electronic surveillance, restitution
centers, work release centers, day centers or other local sanctions established
by agreement with the supervisory authority.
(3) An offender
may not be confined in a restitution center, work release center or jail for
more than 15 days for a violation of conditions of post-prison supervision
unless:
(a) The
Department of Corrections, county corrections agency or supervisory authority
imposes a local sanction under subsection (1) of this section;
(b) A reentry
court imposes a local sanction under ORS 144.099; or
(c) The board or
its designated representative initiates a hearing for the purpose of imposing a
sanction under ORS 144.107 or 144.108.
(4) A hearing
before the board is not required if the department, a county corrections
agency, the supervisory authority or the court imposes a local sanction under
subsection (3) of this section. However, the board may conduct a hearing under
the procedures in ORS 144.343 and 144.347 and impose a different sanction on
the offender than that imposed by the department, a county corrections agency,
the supervisory authority or the court. [1989 c.790 §35; 1991 c.836 §1; 1997
c.525 §4; 2013 c.649 §§31,36; 2025 c.557 §46]
Note: See note under 144.096.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case:
Houston v. Brown, 190 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Houston v. Brown, 190 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 60× “The trial court ruled that habeas corpus relief was not available to plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds and, in the alternative, that the limitation of 180 days of incarceration provided for in the administrative rule adopted pursuant to ORS 144.”
Daniel Chavez v. David Robinson, 12 F.4th 978 (9th Cir. 2021).
“” Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.106 (1). If the available administrative sanctions are inadequate, the supervisory authority may request the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to impose a sanction of incarceration.”
United States v. Giovanni Ramirez, 347 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003).
“57, §§ 516 (A)-17(A) (West 2003) (stating that if revocation is deemed unnecessary for the nature of the violation, parolee or probationer may be placed in an intermediate sanctions facility); Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.106 (l)-(2) (2001) (authorizing a "continuum of administrative…”
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“We do note that, while a sentencing *448 court retains ongoing control over the conditions and consequences of probation, it loses that control once an individual is placed on post-prison supervision; at that point, it is the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, and not…”
State v. Rowland, 262 P.3d 1158 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“343(2)(c), ORS 144.106 (describing sanctions short of revocation).”
Woolstrum v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 918 P.2d 112 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“343(2) controls, and that, under that statute, it has three options: to reinstate parole; to “[r] evoke parole and require that the parole violator serve the remaining balance of the sentence as provided by law”; or to impose sanctions, as provided in ORS 144.106. Neither…”
State v. Rezin, 911 P.2d 1264 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“102(1)(f); ORS 144.106; ORS 144.108. If a violation of the conditions *164 of post-prision supervision involves new criminal activity, the result may be to return the person to a correctional facility.”
Rund v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 953 P.2d 766 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “108 or to ORS 144.106. 4 Petitioner contends that the Board acted outside its authority when it required him, as a condition of his PPS, to participate in a sexual offender treatment program.”
State v. Richards, 370 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “”); ORS 144.106(1) (“Except as otherwise provided by rules of the Department of Corrections and the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision concerning parole and post-prison supervision violators, the supervisory authority shall use a continuum of administrative…”
State v. Patterson, 346 P.3d 614 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“ORS 144.106; OAR 255-075-0079. As we recently explained in the analogous context of sanctions for violating the terms of probation, the purpose of the sanction “is to punish the conduct constituting the probation violation, not to punish the crimes of conviction.”
State v. Miller, 339 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“See ORS 144.106(2)(b) (making jail time a possible sanction for a PPS violation); ORS 161.”
State v. Miller, 339 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“See ORS 144.106(2)(b) (making jail time a possible sanction for a PPS violation); ORS 161.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.106(1) — 1 case
State v. Richards, 370 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“”); ORS 144.106(1) (“Except as otherwise provided by rules of the Department of Corrections and the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision concerning parole and post-prison supervision violators, the supervisory authority shall use a continuum of administrative…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.106(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Miller, 339 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“See ORS 144.106(2)(b) (making jail time a possible sanction for a PPS violation); ORS 161.”
State v. Miller, 339 Or. App. 746 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“See ORS 144.106(2)(b) (making jail time a possible sanction for a PPS violation); ORS 161.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.106(3) — 2 cases
Houston v. Brown, 190 P.3d 427 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“The trial court ruled that habeas corpus relief was not available to plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds and, in the alternative, that the limitation of 180 days of incarceration provided for in the administrative rule adopted pursuant to ORS 144.”
State v. Richards, 370 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“”); ORS 144.106(1) (“Except as otherwise provided by rules of the Department of Corrections and the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision concerning parole and post-prison supervision violators, the supervisory authority shall use a continuum of administrative…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.106(4) — 1 case
State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“We do note that, while a sentencing *448 court retains ongoing control over the conditions and consequences of probation, it loses that control once an individual is placed on post-prison supervision; at that point, it is the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, and not…”
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.