- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
- Date Filed: 06-19-2013
- Case #: A146338
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J., for the Court; Schuman, P.J., and Wollheim, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Dixon is serving a life sentence for aggravated murder and sought review of the decision of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the Board) denying his request to change the terms of his imprisonment to a 30-year term. The Board determined that Dixon failed to meet his burden of proving that he was likely to be rehabilitated in a reasonable time. Dixon argued that the Board failed to provide substantial reasoning for its conclusions and that its decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), on substantial evidence review the Court must determine whether a reasonable person could make the findings the Board made. OAR 255-032-0020 contains factors for determining likelihood of rehabilitation. The Board's ultimate decision was based on its findings related to Dixon's criminal and parole history in addition to his maturity, stability and responsibility. In its order, the Board expressly stated that Dixon lacked maturity, stability and responsibility based on evidence of his criminal history, lack of financial responsibility, inconsistent testimony, and minimization of his crime during his testimony. For each of its findings, the Board expressed specific facts and criteria on which it relied on in coming to its conclusion. The Court of Appeals held the record indicated the Board's final order was supported by substantial evidence and reasoning. Affirmed.