Case Name: MARK S. TEAGUE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2014-07-30
Citations: 264 Or. App. 464
Docket Number: A155566
Parties: MARK S. TEAGUE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
Judges: Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 264
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
Submitted June 6,
OAR 255-094-0006 (2)(d) held valid July 30, 2014
MARK S. TEAGUE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
Agency/Board/Other
A155566
332 P3d 370
Mark S. Teague filed the brief pro se.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Karla H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
PER CURIAM

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.