Bell v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
  • Date Filed: 02-15-2017
  • Case #: A156320
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Garrett, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 144.228(1)(b), “the condition which made the prisoner dangerous is absent or in remission” when a prisoner no longer suffers from or presents the symptoms of a mental disorder that satisfies the terms of the dangerous-offender statute.

Petitioner appealed from an order by the Parole Board (the Board) which deferred consideration of Petitioner’s parole. Petitioner argued that the Board’s order is not supported by substantial evidence because some of the “clinical impressions” documented in Petitioner’s psychiatric report from the time of sentencing “were no longer present” at the time of the parole-consideration hearing. Petitioner was convicted under a dangerous-offender statute ORS 161.725 (1985). At trial, the court found that Petitioner “suffer[ed] from a severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity.” After a hearing, the Board found “the condition which made [petitioner] dangerous” was not absent or in remission.   In State v. Huntley, 302 Or 418, 430 (1986), the Court found that ORS 161.725 directs the Board to consider whether there is evidence that petitioner continues to suffer from a mental disorder that satisfies the terms of the dangerous-offender statute. After reviewing the legislative history, the Court of Appeals determined that the legislature intended the phrase “the condition which made the prisoner dangerous is absent or in remission” from ORS 144.228(1)(b) to mean that the prisoner no longer suffers from or presents the symptoms of a mental disorder that satisfies the terms of the dangerous-offender statute.  The Court found there was a substantial evidentiary basis for the Board’s finding.  Affirmed.

Advanced Search