Convicted in Oregon but still denied parole Why

Have you ever felt powerless against a decision, especially in legal matters in Oregon? You’re not alone; many face similar challenges. Knowing the law is crucial for addressing these issues. This article explores a pivotal case, Norris v. Board of Parole, to demonstrate how understanding court decisions can guide your actions.

Situation

Specific Circumstances

In the late 1970s, in the state of Oregon, a man was convicted of committing two counts of aggravated murder and one count of attempted murder. These crimes were very serious, and the court sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole for 20 years for the murders. Additionally, he received a concurrent 20-year sentence for attempted murder. After serving 15 years in prison, the man requested a rehabilitation hearing. He hoped that this hearing would show he had the potential to change and become a better person, which could make him eligible for parole.

The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, which is responsible for deciding if prisoners can be released early, initially found that he was capable of rehabilitation. However, the Board faced some legal challenges regarding whether they had the authority to change the original sentences based on this finding. The man argued that since the Board found he could be rehabilitated, his minimum terms should be adjusted to reflect this.

Plaintiff’s Claim

The convicted individual, now the plaintiff, claimed that the Board’s decision to recognize his potential for rehabilitation should lead to a change in his minimum confinement terms. He believed that the Board’s refusal to adjust his sentence was inconsistent with their finding that he had the capacity to be rehabilitated.

Defendant’s Claim

The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, acting as the defendant, argued that even though they found the plaintiff capable of rehabilitation, they were not required to alter his minimum terms of confinement. The Board emphasized that two separate findings were necessary: one for the ability to be rehabilitated and another for changing the confinement terms. They also contended that the plaintiff’s attempt to challenge his original sentence was not suitable for this type of proceeding.

Judgment Outcome

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the only necessary finding at a rehabilitation hearing was whether the prisoner could be rehabilitated. Consequently, the Board was required to change the plaintiff’s sentence to life with the possibility of parole. The case was sent back to the Board for further proceedings, ensuring that the plaintiff’s terms of confinement were adjusted accordingly (Oregon SC S45047).

Solution

Immediate Actions

If you find yourself in a similar situation, the first step is to request a rehabilitation hearing after serving the necessary time in prison, which is typically 15 years for aggravated murder cases. It’s important to prepare thoroughly for this hearing, as demonstrating your potential for rehabilitation is crucial. Gathering evidence of good behavior, participation in rehabilitation programs, and any other positive contributions you’ve made during your time in prison can strengthen your case.

Filing and Submission

When preparing to file for a rehabilitation hearing, ensure that all relevant documents and evidence are organized and submitted correctly. This includes any legal forms required by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. Consulting with a legal expert can help you understand the specific requirements and deadlines, ensuring that your application is complete and timely. An attorney can also assist in drafting a compelling argument that highlights your progress and potential for reintegration into society.

Negotiation and Mediation

If the Board initially denies your request for parole despite a positive rehabilitation finding, consider negotiation or mediation as potential strategies. Engaging in open dialogue with the Board may help address any concerns or procedural issues that led to the denial. Presenting additional evidence or clarifications can sometimes resolve misunderstandings and lead to a favorable outcome without the need for further legal proceedings.

FAQ

What is the case about?

The case examines whether the Board of Parole had the authority to uphold minimum confinement terms after finding the petitioner likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period.

What statutes were applied?

The case primarily involves ORS 163.105 and ORS 163.095, which pertain to aggravated murder sentencing and parole eligibility.

What was the court’s decision?

The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reversed the Board’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

What does rehabilitation mean?

Rehabilitation refers to the likelihood of a prisoner being able to reintegrate into society and lead a law-abiding life after incarceration.

What if the board disagrees?

If the board does not find the prisoner likely to be rehabilitated, the prisoner can petition for another hearing after two years.

Can the original sentence change?

The original sentence can change if the board finds the prisoner capable of rehabilitation, altering confinement terms to life with parole possibility.

What is ORS 163.095?

ORS 163.095 defines aggravated murder, including circumstances like multiple murder victims that enhance the gravity of the offense.

How are parole dates set?

Parole dates are set based on a matrix considering the prisoner’s criminal history, crime severity, and rehabilitation potential.

What if the decision is appealed?

An appeal can be made to the higher courts, as was done in this case, to review the lower court’s or board’s decision.

How does parole eligibility work?

Parole eligibility depends on factors like the prisoner’s rehabilitation likelihood and whether the board alters their confinement terms.