MOORE v. BOARD OF PAROLE, 303 Or. 668 (1987)

740 P.2d 782

THOMAS LEROY MOORE, Petitioner on review, v. BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent on review.

CA A41331; SC S33875Oregon Supreme Court.Argued and submitted June 3, 1987,
affirmed August 4, 1987 reconsideration denied October 20, 1987

In Banc

On review from the Court of Appeals.[*]

Lawrence E. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. On the petition for review was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

J. Scott McAlister, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

PER CURIAM

The decisions of the Board of Parole and the Court of Appeals are affirmed.

Gillette, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Linde, J.

Page 669

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]

Page 670

PER CURIAM

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of sodomy in the first degree and was sentenced to 20 years’ and 10 years’ imprisonment with a 10-year minimum, and to a 5-year sentence on a coercion conviction to run consecutively.

At petitioner’s prison term hearing, the Board of Parole (Board) had previously established a history/risk score of 4, crime category 6 with a matrix range of 74 to 100 months and set petitioner at 92 months with a release date of February 21, 1989, thus overriding the 120-month minimum sentence. This was reset to 24 months (total of 92) based on a psychological evaluation dated June 27, 1986, by Dr. Max Reed.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals from the final order of the Board dated August 6, 1986. The Court of Appeals affirmed from the bench.

Petitioner seeks review, alleging that the Board failed to satisfy the requirements of ORS 144.135. Petitioner’s procedural contentions are answered in Anderson v. Board of Parole, 303 Or. 618, 740 P.2d 760 (1987).

Petitioner also claims that the Board erred in giving him a 92-month set in a matrix range of 74 to 100. Attached as Appendix I is petitioner’s Board Action Form, demonstrating that he was given the higher set within the matrix range because of the unfavorable psychological evaluation stating that he was severely emotionally disturbed.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Page 671

OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE BOARD ACTION FORM

AUG 21 1988
— ——————————- ————- ————–

NAME MOORE, THOMAS LEROY DATE ADM 11/26/1980 DOB 03/12/1949 CC PROB ____

SID # 2670172 INST # 43030 ADJ COMT 07/11/1980 RACE ____ DET/NOT _____

INST ___________________ GOODTIME 03/10/1997 SEX ____ BR OFF ________

AKA __________________ EXP DATE 07/09/2005 HGT ________ ADD CONVS _____
————————————————————-
| CASE # | ORS # OFFCLS | CTS | SENTENCE | MAN |
| COUNTY | OFFENSE | | MIN SENT | MIN |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| 800 732474 | 163.405 AF | 1 | 20/00/00 | 10/00 |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| MULT | SODO I | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| 800 732474 | 163.405 AF | 1 | 10/00/00 | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| MULT | SODO I | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| 800 732474 | 163.275 CF | 1 | 05/00/00 | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| MULT | COER | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| 800 732474 | 163.425 CF | 1 | 05/00/00 | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| MULT | SEX ABUS I | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| | | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| | | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| | | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| | | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| | | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| | | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| | | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|
| | | | | |
|—————|—————|——|————|——-|

— ——————————————————–|
| CASE # | CS | SENTENCE | TS | JUDGE |
| COUNTY | TO | BEGINS | DAYS | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| 800 732474 | | 11/24/80 | 138 | JONES, R.E. |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| MULT | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| 800 732474 | | 11/24/80 | 138 | JONES, R.E. |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| MULT | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| 800 732474 | 1 | 11/24/80 | 000 | JONES, R.E. |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| MULT | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| 800 732474 | | 11/24/80 | 138 | JONES, R.E. |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| MULT | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|
| | | | | |
|————|——–|————|——-|————–|

A 0 B 0 C 2 D 1 E 1 F 0 H/R 04 CRIME CAT 05 MATRIX RANGE 74
TO 100 DANG OFF _____ SEX OFF _____
HEARING DATE 08/06/1986 ACTIVITY I ACTION R MOS SET 92
RELEASE DATE 02/21/1989
AGGRAVATION _____ MITIGATION _____ RESCHEDULE 07/1988 TYPE
_____ W/PSYCH X PANEL F

COMMENTS / REASONS:

Inmate was accompanied by his sister-in-law, Patricia Moore.

Based on a psychological evaluation dated June 27, 1986 by Dr. Max Reed,
Board finds inmate must “currently be considered severely emotionally
disturbed so as to be a danger to the health and/or safety of the
community.”

Dinsmore, Gorener, Hays, Jones, Samuelson: Reset 24 months (total of 92);
therefore, establishing a release date of February 21, 1989. A review in
July 1988 with a current psychological evaluation

SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 OTHER CONDITIONS:
9A 9B 9C PO BD 10
11 12 13 14 15 16

TENTATIVE DISCHARGE: ____________________

SIGNATURE, PRESIDING MEMBER /s/ HAYS / mjh DATE 08/06/1986

255-039-06/85

APPENDIX I

Page 672

GILLETTE, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion i Anderson v. Board of Parole, 303 Or. 618, 632, 740 P.2d 760, 769
(1987), I respectfully dissent from that portion of this opinion dealing with a “detailed explanation,” under ORS 144.135, of the action taken by the Board of Parole with respect to the mandatory minimum sentence. I concur with the balance of the opinion.

Linde, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

Page 673