Putnam v. Board of Parole

“The term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum sentence for the crime of conviction. When the total duration of any sentence (prison incarceration and post-prison supervision) exceeds the statutory maximum sentence, the sentencing judge shall reduce the duration of post-prison supervision to the extent necessary to conform the total sentence length to the statutory maximum.” Former OAR 253-05-002(4).

Petitioner sought review of a Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the Board) decision. Petitioner assigned error to the time calculation of his 169-month post-prison supervision term. He argued that under former OAR 253-05-002(4), time served on probation prior to revocation should count towards that maximum. Petitioner further argued that probation is a sentence, and therefore, subject to statutory maximum limitations in 161.605. The Board responded that the order “is consistent with former OAR 253-05-002(4) because the parenthetical in that rule specifies ‘prison incarceration and post-prison supervision’ when it refers to the ‘sentence’ to be calculated.” “The term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum sentence for the crime of conviction. When the total duration of any sentence (prison incarceration and post-prison supervision) exceeds the statutory maximum sentence, the sentencing judge shall reduce the duration of post-prison supervision to the extent necessary to conform the total sentence length to the statutory maximum.” Former OAR 253-05-002(4). The Court of Appeals found that based on the text, context, and legislative history of former OAR 253-05-002(4), the term “sentence” does not include probation. The Court therefore held that the trial court did not error and “time spent on probation is not included as part of the calculation of the statutory maximum sentence, nor the duration of the term of [post-prison supervision].” Affirmed.