Severy v. Board of Parole

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 10-14-2015
  • Case #: A152340
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. For the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The Board of Parole must may conduct a hearing, using whatever procedures it deems appropriate, to set each prisoner’s release date according to the matrix in effect when he committed his crime.

Petitioner sought review of an order by the Board of Parole setting his projected parole release date for February 2022. Petitioner sought review of eight assignments of error. The Court rejected the third, seventh, and eighth without discussion. Further, assignments one (Board didn't have authority) and five (Board violated his 5th amendment right to remain silent) were dismissed because Petitioner failed to properly raise the issues identified in his first and fifth assignments of error on administrative review before the Board. The Court did fully review Petitioner's second, fourth, and sixth assignment of error. Petitioner's second assignment of error was that the Board lacked authority to conduct a prison term hearing in 2011. The Court explained that because the Supreme Court in Severy/Wilson ordered the board on remand to conduct a new hearing using whatever procedure available when the crime was committed Petitioner's argument failed. Petitioner's fourth assignment of error was that the Board lacked authority to use a victim’s age as an aggravating factor to support a longer prison term because that factor applies only when the offender takes advantage of the victim’s vulnerability. The Court found that no such requirement existed under the applicable matrix rules concerning aggravating factors and that the board adequately explained its application of the factor. Finally, The Court rejected Petitioner’s sixth assignment of error, which he argued the board lacked a sufficient number of board members to impose two increases on petitioner’s prison term. It was rejected because the Board in fact had three members in 2011 and 2012 as allowed by law. Affirmed.

Advanced Search