# Sopher v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · January 12, 2005 · 197 Or. App. 118

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2632736

## Case

- **Full name:** SHANE IAN SOPHER, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** January 12, 2005
- **Citations:** 197 Or. App. 118; 103 P.3d 683; 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 10
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Haselton, Linder, Wollheim
- **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/2632736

## Opinion text

*119
PER CURIAM
Petitioner is in prison serving a life sentence for an aggravated murder that he committed in 1992, when he was under 17 years of age. The board held a prison term hearing and, pursuant to OAR 255-032-0005(4), established a prison term for petitioner and a review date. In particular, the board’s order established a prison term of 400 months and a murder “review date” of November 27, 2025. The board’s order was mailed to petitioner on November 22, 1999, and petitioner timely sought judicial review. The board moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the challenged order is not subject to review because it was not an order “setting an initial release date,” as ORS 144.335(3)(a) (1999),
amended by
Or Laws 2001, ch 661, § 1, requires. By order, we denied the motion to dismiss, citing our decision in
Engweiler v. Board of Parole,
170 Or App 653 , 13 P3d 1009 (2000).
On our own motion, we reconsider our order denying the motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated in
Engweiler v. Board of Parole,
197 Or App 43 , 103 P3d 1201 (2005), we now grant the board’s motion.
Petition for judicial review dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2632736. Public record. Not legal advice.