Legal Opinion

Coleman v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 13, 1996No. CA A89645PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions of post-prison supervision. Most of his arguments are resolved by our decisions in Schuch v. Board of Parole, 139 Or App 327, 912 P2d 403, rev den 324 Or 78 (1996), and Gress v. Board of Parole, 143 Or App 7, 924 P2d 329, mod on recons 144 Or App 375, 927 P2d 138 (1996). We do not discuss those arguments any further.

Petitioner also argues that the Board did not have the authority to designate him a “high risk dangerous offender,” because only a court may decide that a person is a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gress v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  2. Gress v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. Schuch v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Noble v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  2. Coleman v. Board of ParoleOregon Supreme Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API