Aikens v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision

Reversal and remand are appropriate if "the board's order similarly did not disclose whether the board would have reached the same determination without the erroneous factual finding." See King v. Board of Parole, 283 Or App 689, 694, 389 P3d 1171 (2017).

Petitioner appealed an order denying the conversion of his imprisonment from a life sentence, with a 30-year minimum term, without the possibility of parole, to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Petitioner assigned error to the Board of Parole and Post Prison Supervision's (Board) failure to investigate the “substantial and significant evidence” that Petitioner provided, which showed he could be rehabilitated within a reasonable time, and further, that the Board did not provide a detailed explanation of “substantial and significant evidence” that showed Defendant could not be rehabilitated within a reasonable amount of time. On appeal, Petitioner reasserted his argument and added that because the Board’s determination was made without a detailed explanation, the order violates his right to due process. In response, the Board argued Petitioner incorrectly asked the Board to evaluate the evidence presented to make the opposite finding. Reversal and remand are appropriate if "the board's order similarly did not disclose whether the board would have reached the same determination without the erroneous factual finding." See King v. Board of Parole, 283 Or App 689, 694, 389 P3d 1171 (2017). The Court held that after reviewing the letters of support for Petitioner, there was no way that a reasonable factfinder could find, as the Board did, that “Petitioner’s compliance with lawful direction in a prison setting is ‘eerily similar’ to his willingness to participate in rape and murder at the direction of a codefendant.”

Reversed and Remanded to reconsider the decision without relying on the previous finding.