Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.780 (2026)

Rules on duration of imprisonment; objectives; considerations in prescribing rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      144.780 Rules on duration of imprisonment; objectives; considerations in prescribing rules. (1) The commission shall propose to the board and the board shall adopt rules establishing ranges of duration of imprisonment to be served for felony offenses prior to release on parole. The range for any offense shall be within the maximum sentence provided for that offense.

      (2) The ranges shall be designed to achieve the following objectives:

      (a) Punishment which is commensurate with the seriousness of the prisoner’s criminal conduct; and

      (b) To the extent not inconsistent with paragraph (a) of this subsection:

      (A) The deterrence of criminal conduct; and

      (B) The protection of the public from further crimes by the defendant.

      (3) The ranges, in achieving the purposes set forth in subsection (2) of this section, shall give primary weight to the seriousness of the prisoner’s present offense and criminal history. Existing correctional resources shall be considered in establishing the ranges. [1977 c.372 §2; 1985 c.163 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Engweiler v. Felton, 260 P.3d 448 (Or. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Engweiler v. Felton, 260 P.3d 448 (Or. 2011). · cites it 20× “105(1) (1997), ORS 144.780 (1997), and ORS 161.620 (1994) in promulgating the JAM rules, but that none of those statutes authorized the board to require that intermediate review process for juvenile aggravated murderers.”
Janowski v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 245 P.3d 1270 (Or. 2010). · cites it 5× ““(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 144.780. Variations from the range shall be in accordance with ORS 144.”
State v. Garcia, 605 P.2d 671 (Or. 1980). · cites it 4× “In light of this mandate for articulated sentencing rationales and the current recognition that consecutive sentences are appropriate only when the defendant poses an unusual risk to the safety of the public, we hold that the trial judge must affirmatively state the reasons for…”
Anderson v. Bd. of Parole, 740 P.2d 760 (Or. 1987). · cites it 6× “ORS 144.780. [4] The BAF then demonstrates that petitioner does not qualify for the 16- to 24-month matrix because the Board voted not to override the 60-month minimum set by the judge and, therefore, petitioner's release date was set for November 13, 1990.”
Engweiler v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 175 P.3d 408 (Or. 2007). · cites it 4× “105(1), and ORS 144.780 (i.e., the 1997 versions of those statutes); the board also relied on the 1994 version of ORS 161.”
State v. Dinkel, 579 P.2d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “120(2) to «* * * apply the appropriate range established pursuant to ORS 144.780. Variations from the range shall be in accordance with ORS 144.”
Hamel v. Johnson, 998 P.2d 661 (Or. 2000). · cites it 4× “Regardless of the length of an indeterminate sentence, under ORS 144.780 and ORS 144.785, “it is the [Board] that determines the actual duration of imprisonment.”
State v. Link, 482 P.3d 28 (Or. 2021). · cites it 2× “120 (2001) (explaining parole hearing);7 ORS 144.780 (2001) (setting forth matrix system).”
Forbus v. Bd. of Parole, 482 P.3d 95 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “Board of Parole committed to the Department of Corrections, the board is required to “apply the appropriate range established pursu- ant to ORS 144.780.” ORS 144.120(2) (1993). ORS 144.”
Jones v. Thompson, 968 P.2d 380 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “ORS 144.780(1) [2] required the Board to adopt rules that established "ranges of duration of imprisonment to be served for felony offenses prior to release on parole" in accordance with the standards described in ORS 144.”
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). · cites it 2× “" (ORS 144.780(2)(a) and ORS 144.785(1)). Thus, regardless of whether a defendant in a burglary-larceny case may be "convicted and sentenced" for both offenses, or only for burglary, the overall "seriousness" of defendant's conduct, including all "aggravating" circumstances, is…”
Price v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 709 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1985). · cites it 7× “The legislative history of ORS 144.780 and 144.785 suggests that proponents of the legislation were concerned with achieving rational, consistent and equitable sentences for similar criminal conduct and with structuring, but not eliminating, the Board’s discretion to set parole…”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.780(1) — 10 cases
State Ex Rel. Engweiler v. Felton, 260 P.3d 448 (Or. 2011). “105(1) (1997), ORS 144.780 (1997), and ORS 161.620 (1994) in promulgating the JAM rules, but that none of those statutes authorized the board to require that intermediate review process for juvenile aggravated murderers.”
Engweiler v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 175 P.3d 408 (Or. 2007). “105(1), and ORS 144.780 (i.e., the 1997 versions of those statutes); the board also relied on the 1994 version of ORS 161.”
Jones v. Thompson, 968 P.2d 380 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “ORS 144.780(1) [2] required the Board to adopt rules that established "ranges of duration of imprisonment to be served for felony offenses prior to release on parole" in accordance with the standards described in ORS 144.”
Forbus v. Bd. of Parole, 482 P.3d 95 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Board of Parole committed to the Department of Corrections, the board is required to “apply the appropriate range established pursu- ant to ORS 144.780.” ORS 144.120(2) (1993). ORS 144.”
Price v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 709 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1985). “The legislative history of ORS 144.780 and 144.785 suggests that proponents of the legislation were concerned with achieving rational, consistent and equitable sentences for similar criminal conduct and with structuring, but not eliminating, the Board’s discretion to set parole…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.780(2) — 2 cases
Jones v. Thompson, 968 P.2d 380 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “ORS 144.780(1) [2] required the Board to adopt rules that established "ranges of duration of imprisonment to be served for felony offenses prior to release on parole" in accordance with the standards described in ORS 144.”
Williams v. Bd. of Parole, 780 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.780(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979). “" (ORS 144.780(2)(a) and ORS 144.785(1)). Thus, regardless of whether a defendant in a burglary-larceny case may be "convicted and sentenced" for both offenses, or only for burglary, the overall "seriousness" of defendant's conduct, including all "aggravating" circumstances, is…”
Price v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 709 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1985). “The legislative history of ORS 144.780 and 144.785 suggests that proponents of the legislation were concerned with achieving rational, consistent and equitable sentences for similar criminal conduct and with structuring, but not eliminating, the Board’s discretion to set parole…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.780(2)(b)(8) — 1 case
Howard v. State Bd. of Parole, 804 P.2d 509 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.780(2)(b)(B) — 1 case
Howard v. State Bd. of Parole, 804 P.2d 509 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.780(3) — 4 cases
Price v. Oregon State Bd. of Parole, 709 P.2d 1075 (Or. 1985). “The legislative history of ORS 144.780 and 144.785 suggests that proponents of the legislation were concerned with achieving rational, consistent and equitable sentences for similar criminal conduct and with structuring, but not eliminating, the Board’s discretion to set parole…”
Calderon-Pacheco v. State Bd. of Parole, 788 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1990).
Price v. Bd. of Parole, 723 P.2d 314 (Or. 1986).
Smith v. State Bd. of Parole, 683 P.2d 998 (Or. 1984).
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.