Court Opinion

ID: 9553388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:28:48.698011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:58.583691
License: Public Domain

*252SCHWAB, C. J.,
dissenting.
Contrary to the majority I do not believe that the holding of Waltz v. Bd. of Parole, 18 Or App 652, 526 P2d 586 (1974), was violated here. In Walts the out-of-state hearing was admittedly for the sole purpose of establishing probable cause. In this case the petitioner was told that he was going to have a revocation hearing in Washington, and long prior to the hearing a Washington lawyer was appointed to represent him. Washington statutes provide for substantially the same kind of hearing which is provided for by Oregon statutes which Waltz holds meet the requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US 471, 92 S Ct 2593, 33 L Ed 2d 484 (1972). The record of the hearing discloses that, in fact, petitioner was given a hearing which was both a probable cause hearing and a revocation hearing. I would affirm the order of the Board of Parole and therefore respectfully dissent.