Wille v. Board of Parole

Simply because a reasonable person could come to a different conclusion does not suggest that the board’s implicit finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Weems/Roberts v. Board of Parole, 347 Or. 586, 602-03, 227 P.3d 671 (2010).

Petitioner was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner sought review of an order declining to change petitioner’s terms of confinement to allow the possibility of parole or work release. Petitioner assigned error to the court’s determination that Petitioner had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he should be eligible for parole. Petitioner argued that the Parole Board lacked substantial evidence and reason for its findings and ultimate conclusion. Simply because a reasonable person could come to a different conclusion does not suggest that the board’s implicit finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Weems/Roberts v. Board of Parole, 347 Or. 586, 602-03, 227 P.3d 671 (2010). The Court of Appeals held that even though there was evidence supporting a reasonable inference that Petitioner should be eligible for parole, the Parole Board did not err because there was substantial evidence that showed Petitioner failed to meet the four factors in OAR 255-032-0020(4) to demonstrate he could be rehabilitated in a reasonable time. Affirmed.