Contreras v. Board of Parole

“Substantial reason *** requires the board to provide ‘some kind of an explanation connecting the facts of the case and the result reached.’” Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 188, 335 P3d 828 (2014). Additionally, “if the board’s reasoning is not obvious, its order *** must at least set for the bases for its inferences.” Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or App 822, 837, 404 P3d 1048 (2017).

Petitioner sought judicial review of a decision by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision deferring petitioner’s parole release date for eight years. Petitioner assigned error to the board’s determination that the Petitioner suffered from present severe emotional disturbance (PSED) constituting a danger to the health and or safety of the community. On appeal, Petitioner argued the board’s order lacked substantial reason to support the decision, as it failed to give specific reason why it chose eight years out of the two through ten-year range available. “Substantial reason *** requires the board to provide ‘some kind of an explanation connecting the facts of the case and the result reached.’” Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 356 Or 186, 188, 335 P3d 828 (2014). Additionally, “if the board’s reasoning is not obvious, its order *** must at least set for the bases for its inferences.” Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or App 822, 837, 404 P3d 1048 (2017). The Court found that the board did not provide sufficient explanation why it chose to defer for a period of eight years, thus failing the “substantial reason” requirement of OAR 255-062-0016. The Court held that while the board provided sufficient evidence to defer parole, it failed to provide evidence to justify the specific time of deferral. Reversed and remanded.