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

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · June 24, 2009 · 229 Or. App. 234

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6950788

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN W. QUINN v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** June 24, 2009
- **Citations:** 229 Or. App. 234; 210 P.3d 944; 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 941; 2009 WL 1838275
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Armstrong, Haselton, Rosenblum
- **Cited by:** 1 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/6950788

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting without discussion the petitioner’s challenge under Article I, section 16, and other constitutional provisions to board rule authorizing board to deny parole rather than set a parole release date

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM
In this judicial review proceeding under ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges the validity of OAR 255-035-0030. That rule provides that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision may, under specified circumstances, deny an offender parole rather than set a parole release date. Petitioner argues that the rule violates state and federal constitutional provisions because it allows the board to deny parole to a person convicted of murder, but—due to the operation of other statutes—not to a person convicted of aggravated murder. In petitioner’s view, the rule thus subjects murder offenders to disproportionate punishment and denies them the same rights, privileges, and procedural protections granted to aggravated murder offenders in violation of Article I, sections 16 and 20, of the Oregon Constitution and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We conclude that petitioner’s arguments lack merit; any discussion of them would be of no benefit to the bench, the bar, or the public.
OAR 255-035-0030 held valid.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6950788. Public record. Not legal advice.