Rivas-Valles v. Board of Parole

The 60-day deadline set forth in ORS 144.335(4) is only for the filing of a petition for review and not for the service of said petition given that the language of the statute only explicitly refers to the petition in regards to the deadline.

Defendant requested review of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision’s (Board) order denying the request by Defendant to allow his aggravated murder sentence to end at 30 years. The board contended that this Court did not have jurisdiction because Defendant filed his petition for review but failed to serve the petition within the 60-day time limit set forth in ORS 144.335(4). The Board argued that the 60-day limit should be for both filing the petition for review and its service while Defendant contended that if the 60-day time limit included service, it would explicitly include it within the statute. This Court agrees with Defendant saying, “Where the legislature does not expressly say that timely service is jurisdictional, we have concluded that it is not. In contrast, where the legislature intends for timely service to be jurisdictional, it expressly says so.” The Court further concluded that the Board had substantial evidence and substantial reason to support its order. Affirmed.