From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Noble v. Board of Parole

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 11, 1996
145 Or. App. 256 (Or. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

CA A89837

Argued and submitted July 24, 1996.

Affirmed December 11, 1996.

Judicial Review from Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.

Eric M. Cumfer, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Mary H. Williams, 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 Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions of parole, including declarations that petitioner is a high risk dangerous offender and a predatory sex offender. ORS 181.585 to ORS 181.589.

Petitioner's arguments are resolved contrary to his position by our decisions in Schuch v. Board of Parole, 139 Or. App. 327, 912 P.2d 403, rev den 324 Or. 78 (1996), Gress v. Board of Parole, 143 Or. App. 7, 924 P.2d 329, on recons 144 Or. App. 375, 927 P.2d 138 (1996), and Coleman v. Board of Parole, 144 Or. App. 487, 927 P.2d 622 (1996).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Noble v. Board of Parole

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 11, 1996
145 Or. App. 256 (Or. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Noble v. Board of Parole

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY JOHN NOBLE, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 11, 1996

Citations

145 Or. App. 256 (Or. Ct. App. 1996)
927 P.2d 1120

Citing Cases

Noble v. Board of Parole

On review from the Court of Appeals. On judicial review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison…