Engweiler v. Board of Parole

The United States Supreme Court's explicit statement prevails: “entitlement, if any, to eventual release will be to parole.” State v. Turner, 235 Or App 462, 466, 234 P.3d 993 (2010).

Petitioner appealed his order of release from prison to parole based on original sentencing. Petitioner assigned error to the Board of Parole’s decision to release him to parole rather than post-prison supervision (PPS) becuase becuase he was originally sentence to a lifetime of PPS upon release. On appeal, Petitioner argued that because the sentencing guidelines became effective after the occurrence of his conviction of aggravated murder, the board errored when they modified the supervision terms. In response, the Board of Parole argued that the order was correct because the Supreme Court has addressed this issue and ruled in favor of release to parole in such a situation. Further, the Board of Parole cited the two decades of litigation that took place about his sentencing that has previously stated, conclusively, and based on the Supreme Court's rulings, that he would be relaesed on parole. The United States Supreme Court's expicit statement prevails: “entitlement, if any, to eventual release will be to parole.” State v. Turner, 235 Or App 462, 466, 234 P.3d 993 (2010). The Court held that release to parole was lawful as it was repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court that "entitlement to any release would be through parole.". Affirmed.