Case ID: or-app_144/html/0487-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted June 27,
    affirmed November 13, 1996
    RICHARD RENE COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
    
    (CA A89645)
    927 P2d 622
    Andy Simrin, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
    Christine Chute, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
    Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER 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 “dangerous offender” under ORS 161.725 to ORS 161.737. Petitioner misunderstands the Board’s action. It did not purport to determine that he is a dangerous offender under the statute. Instead, it determined that he needed a higher level of supervision than do most persons on post-prison supervision. The similarity of terminology does not reflect a similarity of authority or of effect.

Affirmed.