Draves v. Johnson

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in Hamel v. Johnson, 173 Or App 448, 464, 25 P3d 314 (2001) (Armstrong, J., dissenting). Under the proper standard of review, I believe that the trial court erred in upholding the Board’s decision to postpone plaintiffs release on parole.

The relevant finding in this case was that plaintiff had been diagnosed with a psychological condition that constitutes “a present severe emotional disturbance” that makes him a “danger to the health or safety of the community.” ORS 144.125(3); Weidner v. Armenakis, 154 Or App 12, 18-19, 959 P2d 623 (1998),…