Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343 (2026)

Hearing required on revocation; procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

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

144.343 Hearing required on revocation; procedure. (1) When the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision or its designated representative has been informed and has reasonable grounds to believe that a person under its jurisdiction has violated a condition of parole and that revocation of parole may be warranted, the board or its designated representative shall conduct a hearing as promptly as convenient to determine whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of one or more of the conditions of parole has occurred and also conduct a parole violation hearing if necessary. Evidence received and the order of the court at a preliminary hearing under ORS 135.070 to 135.225 may be used by the board to determine the existence of probable cause. A waiver by the defendant of any preliminary hearing shall also constitute a waiver of probable cause hearing by the board. The location of the hearing shall be reasonably near the place of the alleged violation or the place of confinement.

(2) The board may:

(a) Reinstate or continue the alleged violator on parole subject to the same or modified conditions of parole;

(b) Revoke parole and require that the parole violator serve the remaining balance of the sentence as provided by law;

(d) Delegate the authority, in whole or in part, granted by this subsection to its designated representative as provided by rule.

(3) Within a reasonable time prior to the hearing, the board or its designated representative shall provide the parolee with written notice which shall contain the following information:

(a) A concise written statement of the suspected violations and the evidence which forms the basis of the alleged violations.

(b) The parolee’s right to a hearing and the time, place and purpose of the hearing.

(c) The names of persons who have given adverse information upon which the alleged violations are based and the right of the parolee to have such persons present at the hearing for the purposes of confrontation and cross-examination unless it has been determined that there is good cause for not allowing confrontation.

(d) The parolee’s right to present letters, documents, affidavits or persons with relevant information at the hearing unless it has been determined that informants would be subject to risk of harm if their identity were disclosed.

(e) The parolee’s right to subpoena witnesses under ORS 144.347.

(f) The parolee’s right to be represented by counsel and, if indigent, to have counsel appointed at board expense if the board or its designated representative determines, after request, that the request is based on a timely and colorable claim that:

(A) The parolee has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which the parolee is at liberty;

(B) Even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justify or mitigate the violation and make revocation inappropriate and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present; or

(g) That the hearing is being held to determine:

(A) Whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of one or more of the conditions of parole has occurred; and

(B) If there is probable cause to believe a violation of one or more of the conditions of parole has occurred:

(i) Whether to reinstate parole;

(ii) Whether to continue the alleged violator on parole subject to the same or modified conditions of parole; or

(iii) Whether to revoke parole and require that the parole violator serve a term of imprisonment consistent with ORS 144.346.

(4) At the hearing the parolee shall have the right:

(a) To present evidence on the parolee’s behalf, which shall include the right to present letters, documents, affidavits or persons with relevant information regarding the alleged violations;

(b) To confront witnesses against the parolee unless it has been determined that there is good cause not to allow confrontation;

(c) To examine information or documents which form the basis of the alleged violation unless it has been determined that informants would be subject to risk of harm if their identity is disclosed; and

(d) To be represented by counsel and, if indigent, to have counsel provided at board expense if the request and determination provided in subsection (3)(f) of this section have been made. If an indigent’s request is refused, the grounds for the refusal shall be succinctly stated in the record.

(5) Within a reasonable time after the preliminary hearing, the parolee shall be given a written summary of what transpired at the hearing, including the board’s or its designated representative’s decision or recommendation and reasons for the decision or recommendation and the evidence upon which the decision or recommendation was based. If an indigent parolee’s request for counsel at board expense has been made in the manner provided in subsection (3)(f) of this section and refused, the grounds for the refusal shall be succinctly stated in the summary.

(6)(a) The parolee may admit or deny the violation without being physically present at the hearing if the parolee appears before the board or its designee by means of simultaneous television transmission allowing the board to observe and communicate with the parolee and the parolee to observe and communicate with the board or by telephonic communication allowing the board to communicate with the parolee and the parolee to communicate with the board.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, appearance by simultaneous television transmission or telephonic communication shall not be permitted unless the facilities used enable the parolee to consult privately with counsel during the proceedings.

(7) If the board or its designated representative has determined that there is probable cause to believe that a violation of one or more of the conditions of parole has occurred, the hearing shall proceed to receive evidence from which the board may determine whether to reinstate or continue the alleged parole violator on parole subject to the same or modified conditions of parole or revoke parole and require that the parole violator serve a term of imprisonment as provided by ORS 144.346.

(8) At the conclusion of the hearing if probable cause has been determined and the hearing has been held by a member of the board or by a designated representative of the board, the person conducting the hearing shall transmit the record of the hearing, together with a proposed order including findings of fact, recommendation and reasons for the recommendation to the board. The parolee or the parolee’s representative shall have the right to file exceptions and written arguments with the board. The right to file exceptions and written arguments may be waived. After consideration of the record, recommendations, exceptions and arguments a quorum of the board shall enter a final order including findings of fact, its decision and reasons for the decision. [1973 c.694 §13; 1977 c.375 §2; 1981 c.644 §7; 1987 c.158 §20a; 1987 c.803 §17; 1989 c.790 §42a; 1991 c.836 §2; 1993 c.581 §3; 1997 c.313 §12; 2009 c.178 §30; 2010 c.89 §13]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Kessler v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 931 P.2d 801 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kessler v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 931 P.2d 801 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 13× “346 elsewhere in ORS 144.343 “reveal[ ] that ORS 144.346 is the statute the [B]oard is to use in deciding the sanction for a parole violation.”

O'HARA v. Bd. of Parole, 203 P.3d 213 (Or. 2009). · cites it 8× “The parole revocation proceeding at issue here is conducted in accordance with a statute and administrative rules, rather than the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, see generally ORS 144.343 (describing procedure for parole-revocation hearing), and the offender frequently is not…”

State Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Washington, 47 P.3d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “340, 4 a person who had violated the conditions of parole could be “retaken and returned” to a correctional facility for the purpose of conducting a parole violation hearing under ORS 144.343. Under ORS 144.370, the board could then order “suspension” of a person’s parole…”

Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 343 P.3d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “The second pertinent concurrently enacted feature was two new provisions, pertaining exclusively to parole revocation hearings, Oregon Laws 1973, chapter 694, sections 13 and 15 (SB 379 (1973), §§ 13 and 15), which are codified at ORS 144.343 and ORS 144.347. 8 ORS 144.343,…”

Harris v. Bd. of Parole, 614 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “" The 1973 Act did, however, use that term in section 24(7) (enacting ORS 144.343(7)) in the context of parole revocation proceedings and in section 18 (amending ORS 144.”

Ha v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 386 P.3d 70 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “In assessing the import of those rules, we observed that they had to be read together with the pertinent statutes, including ORS 144.343 (1985), which provided that the board could, after revoking parole, “‘require that the parole violator serve the remaining balance of [the]…”

Murphy v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 250 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “That is so because petitioner failed to preserve the core issue that he now asks us to review — whether the board erred in denying bim counsel under ORS 144.343 when his defense to the alleged violation was based on the use of Listerine and Nyquil.”

Haskins v. Palmateer, 63 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “if it finds, in the manner provided in ORS 144.343, that the parolee has violated the conditions or terms of parole.”

Woolstrum v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 918 P.2d 112 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Therefore, the Board urges that ORS 144.343(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…”

Jones v. Thompson, 968 P.2d 380 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “ORS 144.343. There is no basis for us to speculate that plaintiff, if he had been released as scheduled, would thereafter have violated his parole.”

Washa v. Oregon Dep't of Corr., 979 P.2d 273 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “ORS 144.343(2). Given those factors, we conclude that this case is not materially distinguishable from Kim.”

Murphy v. Bd. of Parole, 250 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “That is so because petitioner failed to preserve the core issue that he now asks us to reviewwhether the board erred in denying him counsel under ORS 144.343 when his defense to the alleged violation was based on the use of Listerine and Nyquil.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(1) — 2 cases

Waller v. Drago, 611 F. Supp. 405 (D. Or. 1985).

Erickson v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 578 P.2d 499 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(2) — 5 cases

Washa v. Oregon Dep't of Corr., 979 P.2d 273 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 144.343(2). Given those factors, we conclude that this case is not materially distinguishable from Kim.”

Kessler v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 931 P.2d 801 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “346 elsewhere in ORS 144.343 “reveal[ ] that ORS 144.346 is the statute the [B]oard is to use in deciding the sanction for a parole violation.”

Woolstrum v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 918 P.2d 112 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). “Therefore, the Board urges that ORS 144.343(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…”

Himes v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 190 P.3d 466 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Gurule v. Bd. of Parole, 349 Or. App. 798 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(2)(a) — 2 cases

Ha v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 386 P.3d 70 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “In assessing the import of those rules, we observed that they had to be read together with the pertinent statutes, including ORS 144.343 (1985), which provided that the board could, after revoking parole, “‘require that the parole violator serve the remaining balance of [the]…”

Riley v. Baldwin, 923 P.2d 687 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(2)(b) — 7 cases

State v. Rowland, 262 P.3d 1158 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

State v. Koch, 7 P.3d 769 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(2)(c) — 1 case

State v. Rowland, 262 P.3d 1158 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(3) — 7 cases

O'HARA v. Bd. of Parole, 203 P.3d 213 (Or. 2009). “The parole revocation proceeding at issue here is conducted in accordance with a statute and administrative rules, rather than the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, see generally ORS 144.343 (describing procedure for parole-revocation hearing), and the offender frequently is not…”

Murphy v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 250 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “That is so because petitioner failed to preserve the core issue that he now asks us to review — whether the board erred in denying bim counsel under ORS 144.343 when his defense to the alleged violation was based on the use of Listerine and Nyquil.”

Morgan v. Maclaren Sch., Child.'s Serv. Div., 543 P.2d 304 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).

Murphy v. Bd. of Parole, 250 P.3d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “That is so because petitioner failed to preserve the core issue that he now asks us to reviewwhether the board erred in denying him counsel under ORS 144.343 when his defense to the alleged violation was based on the use of Listerine and Nyquil.”

Ritchie v. Bd. of Parole, 583 P.2d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(3)(a) — 2 cases

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(3)(d) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(3)(e) — 1 case

Smith v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 343 P.3d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “The second pertinent concurrently enacted feature was two new provisions, pertaining exclusively to parole revocation hearings, Oregon Laws 1973, chapter 694, sections 13 and 15 (SB 379 (1973), §§ 13 and 15), which are codified at ORS 144.343 and ORS 144.347. 8 ORS 144.343,…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(3)(f) — 5 cases

Ritchie v. Bd. of Parole, 583 P.2d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Marberry v. Bd. of Parole, 336 Or. App. 467 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(3)(f)(B) — 1 case

Erickson v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 578 P.2d 499 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(3)(g)(B) — 2 cases

State Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Washington, 47 P.3d 537 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “340, 4 a person who had violated the conditions of parole could be “retaken and returned” to a correctional facility for the purpose of conducting a parole violation hearing under ORS 144.343. Under ORS 144.370, the board could then order “suspension” of a person’s parole…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(4)(a) — 3 cases

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(4)(b) — 2 cases

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(4)(d) — 2 cases

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(6) — 2 cases

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.343(7) — 5 cases

Harris v. Bd. of Parole, 614 P.2d 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “" The 1973 Act did, however, use that term in section 24(7) (enacting ORS 144.343(7)) in the context of parole revocation proceedings and in section 18 (amending ORS 144.”

Mageske v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 21 P.3d 150 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Sandersfeld v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 548 P.2d 1333 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

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.