Hill v. Board of Parole
| Decision Date | 22 April 1987 |
| Parties | Steven HILL, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent. CA A35940. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Steven Hill, pro se.
Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen. and Scott McAlister, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and NEWMAN and DEITS, JJ.
Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit delivery of a controlled substance and manufacture of a controlled substance, marijuana. ORS 475.992. The court sentenced him to 10 years with a five-year minimum on the conspiracy count and to 20 years with a 10-year minimum on the manufacturing count, the sentences to run consecutively. The Board set the history/risk assessment at eight and offense severity ratings for both crimes at three. It set the principal range at 10 to 14 months and the base range at six to 10 months and summed the ranges for a total guideline matrix range of 16 to 24 months. Former OAR 255-35-022. It overrode the 10-year minimum, but it sustained the five-year minimum, former OAR 255-35-020(2), and set the release date at 60 months.
Petitioner claims that, because the Board summed the ranges, it could not override one minimum and sustain the other. He relies on former OAR 255-35-022(5):
He argues that the Board could either override or sustain only a single unified minimum. We agree. We remand to the Board to reset petitioner's release date pursuant to its rules. See ORS 183.482(8)(a).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palacios v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
...could only sustain or override as a whole. See Roof v. Board of Parole, 85 Or.App. 188, 736 P.2d 193 (1987); Hill v. Board of Parole, 85 Or.App. 215, 735 P.2d 1301 (1987). In response to those decisions, the Board amended the rule and adopted a new provision authorizing it to override "one ......
-
Williams v. Board of Parole
...as a unit and sustain or override all of them; it could not override one minimum sentence and sustain another. Hill v. Board of Parole, 85 Or.App. 215, 735 P.2d 1301 (1987); Roof v. Board of Parole, 85 Or.App. 188, 736 P.2d 193 The Board amended OAR 255-35-022 and OAR 255-35-023 in 1987, in......
-
Jenkins v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, POST-PRISON
...months of incarceration. After our decisions in Roof v. Board of Parole, 85 Or.App. 188, 736 P.2d 193 (1987), and Hill v. Board of Parole, 85 Or.App. 215, 735 P.2d 1301 (1987), in which we held that under the rules then in effect the Board had to either override or sustain all of a prisoner......