The opinion
No. 684 July 30, 2025 313
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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
DARREN A. TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON
SUPERVISION,
Respondent.
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
A185424
Submitted June 13, 2025.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Stephanie J. Hortsch, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
petitioner.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Reversed and remanded.
314 Taylor v. Board of Parole
LAGESEN, C. J.
Petitioner seeks judicial review from a 2024 final
order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
(board) that set petitioner’s sex offender notification level at
Level III. Petitioner raises three assignments of error, each
relating to an aspect of the argument that the board erred
by not considering his time in the community since his 2005
release, during which he did not commit any further sexual
offenses. See Thomsen v. Board of Parole, 333 Or App 703,
13 554 P3d 308, rev den, 373 Or 81 (2024) (board had to
consider offense-free time in the community since release
when setting notification level). We reverse and remand the
board’s order.1
Petitioner made arguments below that somewhat
related to the issues he raises on review, but acknowledges
that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies; he
also argues that we need not engage in plain-error review
after relaxing exhaustion requirements, but also requests
plain error review. We have previously determined that it is
appropriate to relax or set aside administrative exhaustion
requirements in these circumstances, and we do so here.
Watson v. Board of Parole, 329 Or App 13, 21, 540 P3d 20, 25
(2023). And, as in Watson, assuming without deciding that
we must engage in plain-error review, we conclude that the
error is plain and we exercise our discretion to correct it for
the same reasons as in that case.
The board concedes that it erred by not consider-
ing petitioner’s offense-free time in the community when it
assessed petitioner’s risk of reoffending. We agree with and
accept the board’s concession. The appropriate remedy is to
reverse and remand the board’s order for further proceed-
ings. Thomsen, 333 Or App at 717.
Reversed and remanded.
1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.