Mendacino v. Board of Parole

ORS 144.280 and OAR 255-062-0016 are not unconstitutional ex post facto laws because neither give the board the authority to defer parole beyond the period determined at the time of the offense or give additional reasons to defer parole. Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 863, 374 P3d 948, rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016); ORS 144.335(3).

Petitioner sought judicial review of a final order from the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board). Petitioner assigned error to the board’s decision to defer parole date for ten years. On appeal, Petitioner argued there is a significant risk of an increase in punishment and consequently an unconstitutional ex post facto violation caused by the board’s reliance on ORS 144.280 and OAR 255-062-0016 to set a release date. The board countered that neither provisions allowed longer deferral periods or changed the substantive standard for deferred parole. ORS 144.280 and OAR 255-062-0016 are not unconstitutional ex post facto laws because neither give the board the authority to defer parole beyond the period determined at the time of the offense or give additional reasons to defer parole. Morrison v. Board of Parole, 277 Or App 861, 863, 374 P3d 948, rev den, 360 Or 465 (2016); ORS 144.335(3). The Court of Appeals held that the board did not err because the newly enacted ORS 144.280 and OAR 255-062-0016 do not change whether an inmate’s parole will be deferred, but rather when the next parole interview will happen. Affirmed.