Case Name: SCOTT LOVELACE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2003-06-26
Citations: 188 Or. App. 432
Docket Number: A109610
Parties: SCOTT LOVELACE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 188
Pages: 432–433

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs May 1,
OAR 255-050-0005(2)(c) held valid June 26,
petition for review denied September 24, 2003 (316 Or 16)
SCOTT LOVELACE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent.
A109610
72 P3d 118
Scott A. Lovelace filed the briefs pro se.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Judy C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this proceeding pursuant to ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges the validity of OAR 255-050-0005(2)(c). That rule authorizes the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to postpone an inmate's scheduled release date if the inmate refuses to participate in a psychiatric or psychological evaluation ordered by the board. Petitioner argues that the rule exceeds the board's authority granted under ORS 144.223. Petitioner further, and alternatively, asserts that the rule is facially unconstitutional as violating state and federal constitutional provisions pertaining to free expression and protecting against compelled self-incrimination. Or Const, Art I, § 8, 12; US Const, Amends I, V. We have previously rejected petitioner's statutory argument in Gholston v. Palmateer, 183 Or App 7, 51 P3d 617 (2002). We reject petitioner's facial constitutional challenges without discussion. .
OAR 255-050-0005(2)(c) held valid.