The opinion
514 January 31, 2024 No. 63
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
GILBERT DONALD GUILLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON
SUPERVISION,
Respondent.
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
A179828
Argued November 30, 2023.
Liza Lanford argued the cause and filed the brief for
petitioner.
Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
SHORR, P. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 330 Or App 514 (2024) 515
SHORR, P. J.
Petitioner seeks judicial review of a September
26, 2022, order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison
Supervision that, pursuant to ORS 163A.100 and OAR 255-
085-0020, set his sex offender notification level at Level III
(High). Petitioner asserts that, because the board adopted
the Static-99R actuarial instrument for classifying sex
offenders, the board exceeded its statutory authority when
it adopted additional rules providing for deviation from the
Static-99 coding manual.
Petitioner has failed to develop his argument that
the board, upon adopting an actuarial instrument, was
prohibited from deviating from that instrument. Petitioner
asserts that ORS 163A.100 “delegated the power to pick and
apply a coding instrument based on studies, empirical data
and statistics.” However, that language does not appear in
ORS 163A.100. ORS 163A.100 states only that the board
shall “adopt by rule a sex offender risk assessment method-
ology for use in classifying sex offenders,” resulting in plac-
ing each offender into low, moderate, or high risk categories.
Although petitioner advances a number of policy arguments
regarding the scientific validity of the board’s choice to dis-
regard time an individual is sex-offense-free in the commu-
nity—arguments that we discussed at length in Sohappy v.
Board of Parole, 329 Or App 28, 540 P3d 568 (2023) and
Watson v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 13, 20-21, 540 P3d
20 (2023)—the challenge raised in this matter is limited to
petitioner’s undeveloped assertion that the board exceeded
its statutory authority in adopting rules that deviated from
the Static-99 methodology. Because petitioner has failed to
develop that argument, we reject it.
Affirmed.