# Rise v. Board of Parole

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · December 16, 1992 · 117 Or. App. 265

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2604372

## Case

- **Full name:** ERIC RISE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** December 16, 1992
- **Citations:** 117 Or. App. 265; 843 P.2d 997; 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2423
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Richardson, Deits, Durham
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2604372

## Opinion text

*266
PER CURIAM
Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Board of Parole granting him a ten-month reduction of his sentence. He argues that the Board violated the
ex post facto
provisions of the Oregon and federal constitutions by calculating his reduction under a rule not yet in effect at the time of his offense. OAR 255-40-025(2). Petitioner also contends that the Board was biased against him due to his service as an Inmate Legal Assistant.
The Board expressly found that it would have awarded petitioner the same 10-month reduction had it applied the old rule instead of the new rule. After the Board made its decision, petitioner declared that he did not need information about the appeal process, because he had worked as an Inmate Legal Assistant. One Board member responded that Inmate Legal Assistants bring most of the frivolous lawsuits.
Petitioner was not disadvantaged by application of the new rule, a showing necessary to trigger
ex post facto
analysis.
See Howard v. State Board of Parole,
105 Or App 288, 292 , 804 P2d 509 ,
rev den
311 Or 432 (1991). He has also failed to prove his bias claim. The Board member’s comment evidences neither an unfavorable predisposition about the outcome of petitioner’s hearing nor a bias against petitioner personally.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2604372. Public record. Not legal advice.