Schroeder v. Board of Parole

166 December 26, 2024 No. 952

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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

JOHN PAUL SCHROEDER,

Petitioner,

v.

BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON

SUPERVISION,

Respondent.

Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision;

A181206

Submitted September 24, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate

Section, and John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon

Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,

Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney

General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and

Armstrong, Senior Judge.

KAMINS, J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 166 (2024) 167

KAMINS, J.

Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order

of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (“the

board”) deferring petitioner’s projected parole release date

for 24 months; it found that petitioner suffers from a pres-

ent severe emotional disturbance (“PSED”) that constitutes

a danger to the health or safety of the community, so as to

permit the deferral of petitioner’s parole release date under

ORS 144.125 (1977), amended by Or Laws 1981, ch 426, § 2;

Or Laws 1987, ch 320, § 53; Or Laws 1989, ch 790, § 68;

Or Laws 1993, ch 334, § 1; Or Laws 1999, ch 141, § 1; Or

Laws 2009, ch 660, § 3. Reviewing that finding for substan-

tial evidence and substantial reason, ORS 144.335(3); ORS

183.482(8), we affirm.

We conclude that the record provides substantial

evidence for the board’s finding that petitioner’s emotional

disturbance was severe and constituted a danger to the

community. The board considered the entirety of the psy-

chologist’s report and the assessment of petitioner’s risk fac-

tors. The board also considered petitioner’s conduct before

the board and his prevarication concerning his offense con-

duct. The board’s order explained its decision and provided

a rational connection between the facts and the legal con-

clusions it drew from them. See United Academics of OSU v.

OSU, 315 Or App 348, 355-56, 502 P3d 254 (2021). As such,

the board complied with its statutorily mandated require-

ments, and we thus reject petitioner’s argument that the

board’s failure to do so violated the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment.

In his final two assignments of error, petitioner con-

tends that the board violated Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when

it deferred petitioner’s release. He acknowledges that this

court rejected that argument in Green v. Board of Parole,

308 Or App 159, 160, 478 P3d 608 (2020), rev den, 368 Or

138 (2021), and provides no basis for this court to overrule

Green.

Affirmed.