 | |
| |
| December 1, 2005
|
| Case decided December 1, 2005
The full text of these opinions can be found at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us
Raymond Francis Roy v. Joan Palmateer, (TC 00C20058; 01C19972) (CA A116149; A117045) (SC S51941)
On review from the Court of Appeals in an appeal from Marion County Circuit Court, Joseph C. Guimond, Judge. 194 Or App 330, 95 P3d 1124 (2004). The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Opinion of the Court by Justice Thomas A. Balmer.
In 1984, Raymond Francis Roy (plaintiff) received a life sentence for aggravated murder. In 2000, plaintiff, who was serving his sentence at the Oregon State Penitentiary, asked the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board) to hold a hearing pursuant to ORS 163.105(3) (1983) to determine whether he was "likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time." The board made that finding, converted plaintiff's term of confinement to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole pursuant to ORS 163.105(4) (1983), and set a projected parole release date of May 18, 2004.
Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Norris v. Board of Parole, 331 Or 194, 13 P3d 104 (2000), required the superintendent to release him immediately after the board had found that he was likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable time. He later filed a petition for an alternative writ of mandamus on the same grounds. The trial court ruled against plaintiff on both petitions. Plaintiff appealed those judgments separately. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals for argument and decision. A panel of the Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, reversed the judgment in the habeas corpus case. The state sought review.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas A. Balmer, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the board was required to release him immediately upon finding that he was likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable time. The Court observed that both Norris and ORS 163.105(4) (1983) required the board to convert the inmate's sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole or work release after making that finding, but that neither authority required the inmate's immediate release.
END OF DOCUMENT |
| |
|