Opinion
CA A89645
Argued and submitted June 27, 1996.
Affirmed November 13, 1996.
Judicial Review from Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.
Andy Simrin, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
Christine Chute, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions of post-prison supervision. Most of his arguments are resolved by our decisions in Schuch v. Board of Parole, 139 Or. App. 327, 912 P.2d 403, rev den 324 Or. 78 (1996), and Gress v. Board of Parole, 143 Or. App. 7, 924 P.2d 329, mod on recons 144 Or. App. 375, 927 P.2d 138 (1996). We do not discuss those arguments any further.
Petitioner also argues that the Board did not have the authority to designate him a "high risk dangerous offender," because only a court may decide that a person is a "dangerous offender" under ORS 161.725 to ORS 161.737. Petitioner misunderstands the Board's action. It did not purport to determine that he is a dangerous offender under the statute. Instead, it determined that he needed a higher level of supervision than do most persons on post-prison supervision. The similarity of terminology does not reflect a similarity of authority or of effect.
Affirmed.