ORS 144.228¹
Periodic parole consideration hearings for dangerous offenders
  • setting of parole date
  • information to be considered

(1)(a) Within six months after commitment to the custody of the Department of Corrections of any person sentenced under ORS 161.725 (Standards for sentencing of dangerous offenders) and 161.735 (Procedure for determining whether defendant dangerous) as a dangerous offender, the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision shall set a date for a parole consideration hearing instead of an initial release date as otherwise required under ORS 144.120 (Initial parole hearing) and 144.125 (Review of parole plan, psychological reports and conduct prior to release). The parole consideration hearing date shall be the time the prisoner would otherwise be eligible for parole under the board’s rules.

(b)(A) At the parole consideration hearing, the prisoner shall be given a release date in accordance with the rules of the board if the board finds the prisoner no longer dangerous or finds that the prisoner remains dangerous but can be adequately controlled with supervision and mental health treatment and that the necessary resources for supervision and treatment are available to the prisoner. If the board is unable to make such findings, a review will be conducted no less than two years, and no more than 10 years, from the date of the previous review, until the board is able to make such findings, at which time release on parole shall be ordered if the prisoner is otherwise eligible under the rules.

(B) The board may not grant the prisoner a review hearing that is more than two years from the date of the previous hearing unless the board finds that it is not reasonable to expect that the prisoner would be granted a release date before the date of the subsequent hearing.

(C) The board shall determine the date of the review hearing in accordance with rules adopted by the board. Rules adopted under this subparagraph must be based on the foundation principles of criminal law described in section 15, Article I of the Oregon Constitution.

(D) In no event shall the prisoner be held beyond the maximum sentence less good time credits imposed by the court.

(c) Nothing in this section precludes a prisoner from submitting a request for a parole consideration hearing prior to the earliest time the prisoner is eligible for parole. If the board grants a prisoner a review hearing that is more than two years from the date of the previous hearing, the prisoner may submit a request for an interim review hearing not earlier than the date that is two years from the date of the previous hearing and at intervals of not less than two years thereafter. Should the board find, based upon a request described in this paragraph, that there is a reasonable cause to believe that the prisoner is no longer dangerous or that necessary supervision and treatment are available based upon the information provided in the request, it shall conduct a review as soon as is reasonably convenient.

(d) When the board grants a prisoner a review hearing that is more than two years from the date of the previous hearing and when the board denies a petition for an interim hearing, the board shall issue a final order. The order shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall consist of a concise statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the board’s order. Unless the prisoner bears the burden of persuasion, the order shall include findings necessary to deny the prisoner a release date for any period of time when the prisoner would be presumed to be eligible for a release date.

(2) For the parole consideration hearing, the board shall cause to be brought before it and consider all information regarding such person. The information shall include:

(a) The written report of the examining psychiatrist or psychologist which shall contain all the facts necessary to assist the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision in making its determination. The report of the examining psychiatrist or psychologist shall be made within two months of the date of its consideration; and

(b) A written report to be made by the executive officer of the Department of Corrections institution in which the person has been confined. The executive officer’s report shall contain:

(A) A detailed account of the person’s conduct while confined, all infractions of rules and discipline, all punishment meted out to the person and the circumstances connected therewith, as well as the extent to which the person has responded to the efforts made in the institution to improve the person’s mental and moral condition.

(B) A statement as to the person’s present attitude toward society, toward the sentencing judge, toward the prosecuting district attorney, toward the arresting police officer and toward the person’s previous criminal career.

(C) The work and program record of the person while in or under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. The program history shall include a summary of any psychological or substance abuse treatment and other activities that will assist the board in understanding the psychological adjustment and social skills and habits of the person and that will assist the board in determining the likelihood for successful community reentry. [1955 c.636 §5; 1961 c.424 §6; 1971 c.743 §339; 1973 c.836 §291; 1981 c.644 §5; 1985 c.283 §4; 1987 c.320 §58; 1991 c.318 §2; 1993 c.334 §3; 2009 c.660 §4]

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant was sen­tenced to 15-year min­i­mum sen­tence under dangerous offender statute, Board of Parole properly set parole considera­tion date at 15 years after defendant began serving sen­tence. Teague v. Board of Parole, 105 Or App 1, 803 P2d 279 (1990), Sup Ct review denied; Allred v. Board of Parole, 124 Or App 278, 862 P2d 546 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Where board votes to sustain min­i­mum sen­tence of dangerous offender found to be in remission, parole considera­tion hearing date becomes parole release date. Smith v. Board of Parole, 126 Or App 563, 869 P2d 878 (1994)

Procedural change eliminating fixed period for dangerous offender parole reviews is not ex post facto increase in punish­ment for of­fense. Scott v. Baldwin, 225 F3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2000)

Prisoner bears burden of persuading State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that evidence before board meets substantive standard for giving prisoner release date. Davis v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 341 Or 442, 144 P3d 931 (2006)

Where board decides to not es­tab­lish release date, findings justifying decision are not re­quired. Guzek v. Board of Parole, 222 Or App 81, 191 P3d 800 (2008), Sup Ct review denied

As used in this sec­tion, “reasonable cause” authorizes Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to exercise discre­tion and es­tab­lish standard, within confines of general policy of reasonable cause and this sec­tion, to determine whether prisoner is entitled to parole considera­tion hearing. Nulph v. Board of Parole, 279 Or App 652, 381 P3d 948 (2016)

Where peti­tioner was found to continue to suffer from substance dependency and mixed per­sonality disorder, to have not followed treat­ment recommenda­tions and to present significant risk of com­mit­ting addi­tional violent, sexual acts but did not display specific symptoms in hearing, Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision did not err in deferring parole considera­tion because board is not limited to considering specific symptoms displayed only during hearing to determine whether, under 1985 version of this sec­tion, “condi­tion which made the prisoner dangerous is absent or in remission.” Bell v. Board of Parole, 283 Or App 711, 391 P3d 907 (2017), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 303-347 (1976)

Chapter 144

Notes of Decisions

Under rules of State Board of Parole, board could not in determining history/risk score, consider juvenile adjudica­tions that had been expunged pursuant to [former] ORS 419.800 to 419.839, even if prisoner admits to board that they occurred. West v. Board of Parole, 86 Or App 616, 739 P2d 1096 (1987)

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 32, 67-79 (1973)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 144—Prison Supervision; Work Release; Executive Clemency; Standards for Prison Terms and Parole; Presentence Reports, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors144.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 144, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano144.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information