Opinion

Teague v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

264 Or. App. 464
332 P.3d 370
2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1023
2014 WL 3746487

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Filed: Jul 30, 2014
Status: Published
On the bench: Devore, Garrett, Ortega
Cited by: 0 cases

The opinion

PER CURIAM

As allowed by ORS 183.400, petitioner seeks a judicial determination of the validity of OAR 255-094-0006(2)(d), a rule adopted by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board). That rule requires “active supervision to the expiration of the indeterminate sentences” for those individuals convicted of certain sex offenses. Petitioner contends that the board exceeded its statutory authority when it adopted the rule because, according to him, ORS 144.085 and ORS 144.103 do not authorize active supervision. We find petitioner’s argument unavailing and conclude that the board did not exceed its authority in adopting OAR 255-094-0006(2)(d).

OAR 255-094-0006(2)(d) held valid.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.