Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.226

Examination by psychiatrist or psychologist of person sentenced as dangerous offender; report

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      144.226 Examination by psychiatrist or psychologist of person sentenced as dangerous offender; report. (1) Any person sentenced under ORS 161.725 and 161.735 as a dangerous offender shall within 120 days prior to the parole consideration hearing under ORS 144.228 or the last day of the required incarceration term established under ORS 161.737 and at least every two years thereafter be given a complete mental and psychiatric or psychological examination by a psychiatrist or psychologist appointed by the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. Within 60 days after the examination, the examining psychiatrist or psychologist shall file a written report of findings and conclusions relative to the examination with the Director of the Department of Corrections and chairperson of the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.

      (2) The examining psychiatrist or psychologist shall include in the report a statement as to whether or not in the psychiatrist’s or psychologist’s opinion the convicted person has mental retardation or any mental or emotional disturbance, condition or disorder predisposing the person to the commission of any crime to a degree rendering the examined person a danger to the health or safety of others. The report shall also contain any other information which the examining psychiatrist or psychologist believes will aid the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision in determining whether the examined person is eligible for release. The report shall also state the progress or changes in the condition of the examined person as well as any recommendations for treatment. A certified copy of the report shall be sent to the convicted person, to the convicted person’s attorney and to the executive officer of the Department of Corrections institution in which the convicted person is confined. [1955 c.636 §4; 1961 c.424 §5; 1969 c.597 §114; 1971 c.743 §338; 1973 c.836 §290; 1981 c.644 §4; 1987 c.320 §57; 1989 c.790 §78; 1991 c.318 §1; 1993 c.334 §2; 2005 c.481 §1; 2007 c.70 §36]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1986–2018 · leading case: Colby v. Thompson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colby v. Thompson (2002) orctapp · cites it 23× “In April 1996, as part of plaintiffs parole consideration process, the board ordered him to undergo two psychological evaluations pursuant to ORS 144.226 (1995). Dr. Colistro evaluated plaintiff on April 19, 1996.”
Bell v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2017) orctapp · cites it 4× “228(1)(b) (1985) to include the phrase “the condition which made the prisoner dangerous,” it also amended ORS 144.226 (1979). See Or Laws 1981, ch 644, §§ 4, 5.”
Alexander v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2006) orctapp · cites it 7× “In determining whether petitioner met the substantive criteria for parole release, the board applied the versions of ORS 144.226 and ORS 144.228 in *446 effect at the time of petitioner’s offenses.”
State v. Worth (2015) orctapp · cites it 3× “Specifically, the combination of ORS 144.226, as amended in 1989, and ORS 161.”
State v. Warren (2004) orctapp “” See also ORS 144.226 (providing for psychiatric or psychological examination of a defendant sentenced as a dangerous offender for purpose of consideration by Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision of offender’s eligibility for release); ORS 144.”
State v. Huntley (1986) or “ORS 144.226 provides for psychiatric review every two years of any person sentenced under ORS 161.”
Smith v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2017) orctapp · cites it 9× “” We write to address two aspects of that argument: (1) that the board erred in relying on an examination by a psychologist employed by the board rather than on an examination by a psychiatrist appointed by the Superintendent of the Oregon State Hospital, as was required by the…”
State v. Pryor (1989) orctapp “See ORS 144.226(1); OAR 255-38-005. Defendant was prejudiced by being sentenced as a dangerous offender, and we address the merits of his claim of error.”
Grimm v. Board of Parole (2013) orctapp “228(l)(b)(A) (at parole consideration hearing for dangerous offenders, the board may set a release date if it finds the petitioner no longer dangerous or that he remains dangerous but can be adequately controlled in the community); ORS 144.226(2) (examining psychiatrist or…”
Nevins v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2018) orctapp · cites it 2× “Characterizing the matter as a "close one," we observed that ORS 144.226 required the board to obtain a psychological evaluation to assist it in making parole consideration decisions and concluded that, where it was "impossible to determine the extent to which [the…”
Dam v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2013) orctapp · cites it 4× “In anticipation of a parole consideration hearing of September 3, 2008, the board ordered a psychological evaluation of petitioner pursuant to ORS 144.226 and ORS 144.228. The evaluation was conducted on June 20, 2008, by Dr.”
Guzman v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON (2005) orctapp “” 7 ORS 144.226; ORS 144.228. We review the board’s order for substantial evidence and errors of law.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.226(1) — 5 cases
Colby v. Thompson (2002) orctapp “In April 1996, as part of plaintiffs parole consideration process, the board ordered him to undergo two psychological evaluations pursuant to ORS 144.226 (1995). Dr. Colistro evaluated plaintiff on April 19, 1996.”
Bell v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2017) orctapp “228(1)(b) (1985) to include the phrase “the condition which made the prisoner dangerous,” it also amended ORS 144.226 (1979). See Or Laws 1981, ch 644, §§ 4, 5.”
Alexander v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2006) orctapp “In determining whether petitioner met the substantive criteria for parole release, the board applied the versions of ORS 144.226 and ORS 144.228 in *446 effect at the time of petitioner’s offenses.”
State v. Pryor (1989) orctapp “See ORS 144.226(1); OAR 255-38-005. Defendant was prejudiced by being sentenced as a dangerous offender, and we address the merits of his claim of error.”
Meriweather v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (1996) orctapp
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.226(2) — 5 cases
Colby v. Thompson (2002) orctapp “In April 1996, as part of plaintiffs parole consideration process, the board ordered him to undergo two psychological evaluations pursuant to ORS 144.226 (1995). Dr. Colistro evaluated plaintiff on April 19, 1996.”
Alexander v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2006) orctapp “In determining whether petitioner met the substantive criteria for parole release, the board applied the versions of ORS 144.226 and ORS 144.228 in *446 effect at the time of petitioner’s offenses.”
Grimm v. Board of Parole (2013) orctapp “228(l)(b)(A) (at parole consideration hearing for dangerous offenders, the board may set a release date if it finds the petitioner no longer dangerous or that he remains dangerous but can be adequately controlled in the community); ORS 144.226(2) (examining psychiatrist or…”
Smith v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2017) orctapp “” We write to address two aspects of that argument: (1) that the board erred in relying on an examination by a psychologist employed by the board rather than on an examination by a psychiatrist appointed by the Superintendent of the Oregon State Hospital, as was required by the…”
Dam v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2013) orctapp “In anticipation of a parole consideration hearing of September 3, 2008, the board ordered a psychological evaluation of petitioner pursuant to ORS 144.226 and ORS 144.228. The evaluation was conducted on June 20, 2008, by Dr.”
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.