The opinion
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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 166 (2024) 167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.