144.125 Review
of parole plan, psychological reports and conduct prior to release; release
postponement; elements of parole plan; Department of Corrections assistance;
rules. (1) Prior
to the scheduled release of any prisoner on parole and prior to release
rescheduled under this section, the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison
Supervision may upon request of the Department of Corrections or on its own
initiative interview the prisoner to review the prisoner’s parole plan and
psychiatric or psychological report, if any, and the record of the prisoner’s
conduct during confinement. To accommodate such review by the board, the
Department of Corrections shall provide to the board any psychiatric or
psychological reports held by the department regarding the prisoner. However,
if the psychiatrist or psychologist who prepared any report or any treating
psychiatrist or psychologist determines that disclosure to the prisoner of the
contents of the report would be detrimental to the prisoner’s mental or
emotional health, the psychiatrist or psychologist may indorse upon the report
a recommendation that it not be disclosed to the prisoner. The department may
withhold from the board any report so indorsed.
(2) The board
shall postpone a prisoner’s scheduled release date if it finds, after a
hearing, that the prisoner engaged in serious misconduct during confinement.
The board shall adopt rules defining serious misconduct and specifying periods
of postponement for such misconduct.
(3)(a) If the
board finds the prisoner has a present severe emotional disturbance such as to
constitute a danger to the health or safety of the community, the board may
order the postponement of the scheduled parole release until a specified future
date. The board may not postpone a prisoner’s scheduled release date to a date
that is less than two years, or more than 10 years, from the date of the
hearing, unless the prisoner would be held beyond the maximum sentence. The
board shall determine the scheduled release date, and the prisoner may petition
for interim review, in accordance with ORS 144.280.
(b) If the board
finds the prisoner has a present severe emotional disturbance such as to
constitute a danger to the health or safety of the community, but also finds
that the prisoner can be adequately controlled with supervision and mental
health treatment and that the necessary supervision and treatment are
available, the board may order the prisoner released on parole subject to
conditions that are in the best interests of community safety and the prisoner’s
welfare.
(4) Each prisoner
shall furnish the board with a parole plan prior to the scheduled release of
the prisoner on parole. The board shall adopt rules specifying the elements of
an adequate parole plan and may defer release of the prisoner for not more than
three months if it finds that the parole plan is inadequate. The Department of
Corrections shall assist prisoners in preparing parole plans. [1977 c.372 §6;
1981 c.426 §2; 1987 c.320 §53; 1989 c.790 §68; 1993 c.334 §1; 1999 c.141 §1;
2009 c.660 §3]
Note: See note under 144.110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
123
cases (
23 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 106× “2d 314 (1996), a habeas corpus plaintiff made an ex post facto challenge to the Board's application of a version of ORS 144.125 that was not in effect at the time of the inmate's crime.”
Weidner v. Armenakis, 959 P.2d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 52× “On March 14, 1996, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) deferred plaintiff's release date for a period of two years, pursuant to the provisions of ORS 144.125. In the present action, plaintiff challenges the Board's decision to defer his release, asserting…”
Jenkins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 335 P.3d 828 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 16× “470(2) (findings of fact “shall consist of a concise statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the agency’s order”).”
Peek v. Thompson, 980 P.2d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 26× “We explained: "It is apparent from the text and context of ORS 144.125 (1991) that the determination as to whether a prisoner suffers from a severe emotional disturbance such as to constitute a danger to the health and safety of the community is a judgment that the legislature…”
Mendacino v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 404 P.3d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 17× “In 1997, shortly before petitioner’s scheduled release on parole, the board conducted an “exit interview” under ORS 144.125 to review whether petitioner was suitable for release.”
Hamel v. Johnson, 998 P.2d 661 (Or. 2000).
· cites it 17× “125(3) (1987); and an inadequate parole release plan, ORS 144.125(4) (1987). Any one of the statutory reasons for postponing a release date, if valid, suffices to postpone a scheduled parole release date.”
Janowski v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 245 P.3d 1270 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 13× “Release shall be contingent upon the satisfaction of the requirements of ORS 144.125. “(2) In setting the initial parole release date for a prisoner pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the board shall apply the appropriate range established pursuant to ORS 144.”
Engweiler v. Persson, 316 P.3d 264 (Or. 2013).
· cites it 15× “1 For the reasons explained below, we conclude that, although — in light of precedent that this court will follow based on principles of stare decisis — plaintiff is entitled to have his term of incarceration reduced by earned-time credits, he is not entitled to habeas corpus…”
Meadows v. Schiedler, 924 P.2d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 17× “]” On July 18,1995, relying on the 1993 version of ORS 144.125, the Board deferred plaintiffs parole release date for 24 months, until August 21,1997.”
State v. Link, 482 P.3d 28 (Or. 2021).
· cites it 6× “Link, 346 Or 187 , 208 8 ORS 144.125 (2001), amended by Or Laws 2009, ch 660, § 3.”
Gordon v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 175 P.3d 461 (Or. 2007).
· cites it 11× “120, however, the board may postpone that date for only three reasons: if the inmate has engaged in serious misconduct while in prison, the board must postpone the release date, ORS 144.125(2); if the inmate has a severe psychiatric or psychological disturbance such as to…”
Corgain v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 162 P.3d 990 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 17× “ravated murder? For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that (1) the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board) correctly determined that petitioner did not begin to serve his consecutive sentence at the time that the board determined that petitioner was likely to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.125(1) — 22 cases
Engweiler v. Persson, 316 P.3d 264 (Or. 2013).
“1 For the reasons explained below, we conclude that, although — in light of precedent that this court will follow based on principles of stare decisis — plaintiff is entitled to have his term of incarceration reduced by earned-time credits, he is not entitled to habeas corpus…”
Janowski v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 245 P.3d 1270 (Or. 2010).
“Release shall be contingent upon the satisfaction of the requirements of ORS 144.125. “(2) In setting the initial parole release date for a prisoner pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the board shall apply the appropriate range established pursuant to ORS 144.”
Mendacino v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 404 P.3d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In 1997, shortly before petitioner’s scheduled release on parole, the board conducted an “exit interview” under ORS 144.125 to review whether petitioner was suitable for release.”
Weidner v. Armenakis, 959 P.2d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“On March 14, 1996, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) deferred plaintiff's release date for a period of two years, pursuant to the provisions of ORS 144.125. In the present action, plaintiff challenges the Board's decision to defer his release, asserting…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.125(2) — 30 cases
Janowski v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 245 P.3d 1270 (Or. 2010).
“Release shall be contingent upon the satisfaction of the requirements of ORS 144.125. “(2) In setting the initial parole release date for a prisoner pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the board shall apply the appropriate range established pursuant to ORS 144.”
Engweiler v. Persson, 316 P.3d 264 (Or. 2013).
“1 For the reasons explained below, we conclude that, although — in light of precedent that this court will follow based on principles of stare decisis — plaintiff is entitled to have his term of incarceration reduced by earned-time credits, he is not entitled to habeas corpus…”
State v. Link, 482 P.3d 28 (Or. 2021).
“Link, 346 Or 187 , 208 8 ORS 144.125 (2001), amended by Or Laws 2009, ch 660, § 3.”
Mendacino v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 404 P.3d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In 1997, shortly before petitioner’s scheduled release on parole, the board conducted an “exit interview” under ORS 144.125 to review whether petitioner was suitable for release.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.125(3) — 71 cases
Hamel v. Johnson, 25 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“2d 314 (1996), a habeas corpus plaintiff made an ex post facto challenge to the Board's application of a version of ORS 144.125 that was not in effect at the time of the inmate's crime.”
Weidner v. Armenakis, 959 P.2d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“On March 14, 1996, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) deferred plaintiff's release date for a period of two years, pursuant to the provisions of ORS 144.125. In the present action, plaintiff challenges the Board's decision to defer his release, asserting…”
Peek v. Thompson, 980 P.2d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“We explained: "It is apparent from the text and context of ORS 144.125 (1991) that the determination as to whether a prisoner suffers from a severe emotional disturbance such as to constitute a danger to the health and safety of the community is a judgment that the legislature…”
Hamel v. Johnson, 998 P.2d 661 (Or. 2000).
“125(3) (1987); and an inadequate parole release plan, ORS 144.125(4) (1987). Any one of the statutory reasons for postponing a release date, if valid, suffices to postpone a scheduled parole release date.”
Meadows v. Schiedler, 924 P.2d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“]” On July 18,1995, relying on the 1993 version of ORS 144.125, the Board deferred plaintiffs parole release date for 24 months, until August 21,1997.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.125(3)(a) — 18 cases
Mendacino v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 404 P.3d 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In 1997, shortly before petitioner’s scheduled release on parole, the board conducted an “exit interview” under ORS 144.125 to review whether petitioner was suitable for release.”
State v. Link, 482 P.3d 28 (Or. 2021).
“Link, 346 Or 187 , 208 8 ORS 144.125 (2001), amended by Or Laws 2009, ch 660, § 3.”
Meadows v. Schiedler, 924 P.2d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“]” On July 18,1995, relying on the 1993 version of ORS 144.125, the Board deferred plaintiffs parole release date for 24 months, until August 21,1997.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.125(4) — 9 cases
Weidner v. Armenakis, 959 P.2d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“On March 14, 1996, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) deferred plaintiff's release date for a period of two years, pursuant to the provisions of ORS 144.125. In the present action, plaintiff challenges the Board's decision to defer his release, asserting…”
State v. Link, 482 P.3d 28 (Or. 2021).
“Link, 346 Or 187 , 208 8 ORS 144.125 (2001), amended by Or Laws 2009, ch 660, § 3.”
Janowski v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 245 P.3d 1270 (Or. 2010).
“Release shall be contingent upon the satisfaction of the requirements of ORS 144.125. “(2) In setting the initial parole release date for a prisoner pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the board shall apply the appropriate range established pursuant to ORS 144.”
Hamel v. Johnson, 998 P.2d 661 (Or. 2000).
“125(3) (1987); and an inadequate parole release plan, ORS 144.125(4) (1987). Any one of the statutory reasons for postponing a release date, if valid, suffices to postpone a scheduled parole release date.”
Gordon v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 175 P.3d 461 (Or. 2007).
“120, however, the board may postpone that date for only three reasons: if the inmate has engaged in serious misconduct while in prison, the board must postpone the release date, ORS 144.125(2); if the inmate has a severe psychiatric or psychological disturbance such as to…”
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.