King v. Board of Parole

The Board of Parole’s order must “articulate[] the reasoning that leads from the facts to the conclusion drawn.” Dixon v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 257 Or App 273, 286, 306 P3d 715 (2013) (quoting Salosha, Inc. v. Lane County, 201 Or App 138, 143, 117 P3d 1047 (2005).

Petitioner wanted review of his final order of the Parole Board that declined the possibility of his murder sentence of life converting to life with the possibility of parole. Petitioner assigned error to a lack of evidence to support factual findings, and also that the order was without substantial reason. The Board of Parole’s order must “articulate[] the reasoning that leads from the facts to the conclusion drawn.” Dixon v.  Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 257 Or App 273, 286, 306 P3d 715 (2013) (quoting Salosha, Inc. v. Lane County, 201 Or App 138, 143, 117 P3d 1047 (2005). Additionally, the board has a 10 factors from OAR 255-032-0020 that it may consider when determining whether the inmate would likely be rehabilitated within a reasonable time, but they do not have to rely on them. The Court found that here the Board used five of the ten criteria, with four that were “sufficiently supported by substantial reason in the language of the board’s order.” In this case it is enough to meet the burden. Affirmed.