Case Name: KEITH ALAN CHRISTENSON, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1996-09-11
Citations: 143 Or. App. 483
Docket Number: 95C-10949; CA A89650
Parties: KEITH ALAN CHRISTENSON, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
Judges: Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 143
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs June 28,
reversed and remanded September 11, 1996
KEITH ALAN CHRISTENSON, Appellant, v. S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
(95C-10949; CA A89650)
923 P2d 1316
Mark J. Geiger filed the brief for appellant.
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Stephen L. Madkour, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff brought a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) had applied the 1993 version of ORS 144.125 in determining his parole release date, although he had committed his offense in January 1987. He alleged that in doing so, the Board violated constitutional ex post facto protections. Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that there was no ex post facto violation, and plaintiff filed a response to defendant's argument. After hearing arguments, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.
Application of ORS 144.125(3)(a) (1993) to a prisoner whose offense was committed before the effective date of that statute violates ex post facto protections. Meadows v. Schiedler, 143 Or App 213, 924 P2d 314 (1996). The court erred in dismissing plaintiffs petition.
Reversed and remanded.
We have rejected plaintiffs argument made to the trial court that denial of direct judicial review of the Board's decision violated ex post facto and due process protections. Shelby v. Board of Parole, 140 Or App 102, 915 P2d 414, rev den 324 Or 18 (1996).