Ha v. Board of Parole

Under ORS 144.343 (1987), the Board of Parole and Post-Conviction Supervision has the authority, after conducting a parole-revocation hearing and on finding that the parolee violated the terms of his or her release to require that a “parole violator serve the remaining balance of the sentence as provided by law.”

Petitioner sought judicial review of an order that reflects the Board of Parole and Post-Conviction Supervision’s (the Board) denial of his rerelease on parole. Petitioner argued that the board erred in requiring him to remain incarcerated for ten more years because under OAR 255-75-079 (1989), the Board was limited to incarcerating him for a further six to eight months.  Under ORS 144.343 (1987), the Board had the authority, after conducting a parole-revocation hearing, and on finding that the parolee violated the terms of his or her release, either to reinstate or continue the violator on parole “subject to the same or modified conditions of parole” or to “require that [a] “parole violator serve the remaining balance of the sentence as provided by law.” In this case, after deciding to revoke Petitioner’s parole, the Board scheduled a future disposition hearing. At that hearing, a board member explained to petitioner that the Board would be deciding whether to set a new parole release date (presumably pursuant to OAR 255-75-079) or deny him rerelease on parole. Affirmed.