144.228
Periodic parole consideration hearings for dangerous offenders; setting of
parole date; information to be considered. (1)(a) Within six months after commitment to the
custody of the Department of Corrections of any person sentenced under ORS
161.725 and 161.735 as a dangerous offender, the State Board of Parole and
Post-Prison Supervision shall set a date for a parole consideration hearing
instead of an initial release date as otherwise required under ORS 144.120 and
144.125. The parole consideration hearing date shall be the time the prisoner
would otherwise be eligible for parole under the board’s rules.
(b)(A) At the
parole consideration hearing, the prisoner shall be given a release date in
accordance with the rules of the board if the board finds the prisoner no
longer dangerous or finds that the prisoner remains dangerous but can be
adequately controlled with supervision and mental health treatment and that the
necessary resources for supervision and treatment are available to the
prisoner. If the board is unable to make such findings, a review will be
conducted no less than two years, and no more than 10 years, from the date of
the previous review, until the board is able to make such findings, at which
time release on parole shall be ordered if the prisoner is otherwise eligible
under the rules.
(B) The board may
not grant the prisoner a review hearing that is more than two years from the
date of the previous hearing unless the board finds that it is not reasonable
to expect that the prisoner would be granted a release date before the date of
the subsequent hearing.
(C) The board
shall determine the date of the review hearing in accordance with rules adopted
by the board. Rules adopted under this subparagraph must be based on the
foundation principles of criminal law described in section 15, Article I of the
Oregon Constitution.
(D) In no event
shall the prisoner be held beyond the maximum sentence less good time credits
imposed by the court.
(c) Nothing in
this section precludes a prisoner from submitting a request for a parole
consideration hearing prior to the earliest time the prisoner is eligible for
parole. If the board grants a prisoner a review hearing that is more than two
years from the date of the previous hearing, the prisoner may submit a request
for an interim review hearing not earlier than the date that is two years from
the date of the previous hearing and at intervals of not less than two years
thereafter. Should the board find, based upon a request described in this
paragraph, that there is a reasonable cause to believe that the prisoner is no
longer dangerous or that necessary supervision and treatment are available
based upon the information provided in the request, it shall conduct a review
as soon as is reasonably convenient.
(d) When the
board grants a prisoner a review hearing that is more than two years from the
date of the previous hearing and when the board denies a petition for an
interim hearing, the board shall issue a final order. The order shall be
accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The 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 board’s order. Unless the prisoner bears the burden of
persuasion, the order shall include findings necessary to deny the prisoner a
release date for any period of time when the prisoner would be presumed to be
eligible for a release date.
(2) For the
parole consideration hearing, the board shall cause to be brought before it and
consider all information regarding such person. The information shall include:
(a) The written
report of the examining psychiatrist or psychologist which shall contain all
the facts necessary to assist the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison
Supervision in making its determination. The report of the examining
psychiatrist or psychologist shall be made within two months of the date of its
consideration; and
(b) A written
report to be made by the executive officer of the Department of Corrections
institution in which the person has been confined. The executive officer’s
report shall contain:
(A) A detailed
account of the person’s conduct while confined, all infractions of rules and
discipline, all punishment meted out to the person and the circumstances
connected therewith, as well as the extent to which the person has responded to
the efforts made in the institution to improve the person’s mental and moral
condition.
(B) A statement
as to the person’s present attitude toward society, toward the sentencing
judge, toward the prosecuting district attorney, toward the arresting police
officer and toward the person’s previous criminal career.
(C) The work and
program record of the person while in or under the supervision of the
Department of Corrections. The program history shall include a summary of any
psychological or substance abuse treatment and other activities that will
assist the board in understanding the psychological adjustment and social
skills and habits of the person and that will assist the board in determining
the likelihood for successful community reentry. [1955 c.636 §5; 1961 c.424 §6;
1971 c.743 §339; 1973 c.836 §291; 1981 c.644 §5; 1985 c.283 §4; 1987 c.320 §58;
1991 c.318 §2; 1993 c.334 §3; 2009 c.660 §4]
144.230 [Amended by 1963 c.625 §1;
repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016)
orctapp · cites it 23×
“Consequently, it authorizes the board to exercise its discretion to complete the general legislative policy embodied in the statute.”
Colby v. Thompson (2002)
orctapp · cites it 16×
“First, plaintiff argues that the board violated ORS 144.228 1 by not making particularized findings concerning whether he could be adequately controlled in the community by means of reasonably available supervision and treatment resources.”
Hayward v. Marshall (2010)
ca9 · cites it 2×
“" Or.Rev.Stat. § 144.228(1)(b)(A). In Nevada, when determining whether to release an eligible prisoner on parole, the Board "shall consider" not only "[w]hether there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the laws" but…”
Smith v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2015)
orctapp · cites it 8×
“The issue presented in this case is whether an individual who is subject to the parole consideration provisions for a dangerous offender, ORS 144.228, has a right to subpoena witnesses for that parole consideration hearing.”
Guzek v. Board of Parole (2023)
orctapp · cites it 12×
“Petitioner has had a number of parole consideration hearings conducted by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board) under ORS 144.228, but it is the most recent hearing and the board’s decision to defer his parole consideration date for thirty-six months that…”
State v. Worth (2015)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“5 years) in prison, he would become eligible for post-prison supervision, but would remain incarcerated for the remainder of the 120-year indeterminate term unless and until the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision determined that he was fit for release.”
Quintero v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (1999)
or · cites it 3×
““(b) Setting a date for a parole consideration hearing under ORS 144.228. “(c) Setting a release date, or declining to set a release date, after a parole consideration hearing, under ORS 144.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1) — 12 cases
Colby v. Thompson (2002)
orctapp
“First, plaintiff argues that the board violated ORS 144.228 1 by not making particularized findings concerning whether he could be adequately controlled in the community by means of reasonably available supervision and treatment resources.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1)(a) — 8 cases
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016)
orctapp
“Consequently, it authorizes the board to exercise its discretion to complete the general legislative policy embodied in the statute.”
Guzek v. Board of Parole (2023)
orctapp
“Petitioner has had a number of parole consideration hearings conducted by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board) under ORS 144.228, but it is the most recent hearing and the board’s decision to defer his parole consideration date for thirty-six months that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1)(b) — 10 cases
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016)
orctapp
“Consequently, it authorizes the board to exercise its discretion to complete the general legislative policy embodied in the statute.”
Guzek v. Board of Parole (2023)
orctapp
“Petitioner has had a number of parole consideration hearings conducted by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board) under ORS 144.228, but it is the most recent hearing and the board’s decision to defer his parole consideration date for thirty-six months that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1)(b)(A) — 5 cases
Hayward v. Marshall (2010)
ca9
“" Or.Rev.Stat. § 144.228(1)(b)(A). In Nevada, when determining whether to release an eligible prisoner on parole, the Board "shall consider" not only "[w]hether there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the laws" but…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1)(b)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1)(b)(C) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1)(c) — 8 cases
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016)
orctapp
“Consequently, it authorizes the board to exercise its discretion to complete the general legislative policy embodied in the statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1)(d) — 1 case
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016)
orctapp
“Consequently, it authorizes the board to exercise its discretion to complete the general legislative policy embodied in the statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(1)(e) — 1 case
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016)
orctapp
“Consequently, it authorizes the board to exercise its discretion to complete the general legislative policy embodied in the statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(2) — 8 cases
Colby v. Thompson (2002)
orctapp
“First, plaintiff argues that the board violated ORS 144.228 1 by not making particularized findings concerning whether he could be adequately controlled in the community by means of reasonably available supervision and treatment resources.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(2)(a) — 1 case
Colby v. Thompson (2002)
orctapp
“First, plaintiff argues that the board violated ORS 144.228 1 by not making particularized findings concerning whether he could be adequately controlled in the community by means of reasonably available supervision and treatment resources.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(2)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(2)(b)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(2)(b)(C) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(l)(a) — 7 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(l)(b) — 10 cases
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016)
orctapp
“Consequently, it authorizes the board to exercise its discretion to complete the general legislative policy embodied in the statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(l)(b)(A) — 3 cases
Smith v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision (2015)
orctapp
“The issue presented in this case is whether an individual who is subject to the parole consideration provisions for a dangerous offender, ORS 144.228, has a right to subpoena witnesses for that parole consideration hearing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.228(l)(c) — 7 cases
Nulph v. Board of Parole (2016)
orctapp
“Consequently, it authorizes the board to exercise its discretion to complete the general legislative policy embodied in the statute.”
Colby v. Thompson (2002)
orctapp
“First, plaintiff argues that the board violated ORS 144.228 1 by not making particularized findings concerning whether he could be adequately controlled in the community by means of reasonably available supervision and treatment resources.”
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.