Janowski v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
245 P.3d 1270
| Or. | 2010Background
- Janowski and Fleming committed aggravated murders in 1985 and 1985/1986 respectively, were sentenced to life with a 30-year mandatory minimum under ORS 163.105(1) (1985), and had matrix ranges set by the Board early in their incarceration.
- The Board initially maintained the 30-year minimum while setting prison term ranges (matrix) for both inmates, later retracting its matrix classifications in 1995 as aggravated murder became unclassified.
- Both inmates reached 20 years of confinement and invoked ORS 163.105(2)-(3) to seek rehabilitation hearings that could convert their terms to life with a parole eligibility, potentially shortening the confinement.
- In 2005 (Janowski) and 2006 (Fleming), the Board held rehabilitation hearings and unanimously found likely rehabilitation, converting the terms to life with parole, but continued to schedule release dates at the end of the 30-year minimum.
- The Court of Appeals held that the Board could override the 30-year minimum and release after 20 years, but remanded to determine which laws govern the release decision; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review to resolve authority and applicable rules governing such releases.
- The Supreme Court affirms in part that the Board may override the 30-year minimum and apply the parole matrix for release decisions, and reverses in part the remand directing consideration of which statutes govern release decisions, directing application of the matrix system to set release dates for those converted terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Board have authority to override the 30-year minimum and release after 20 years | Janowski/Fleming contend ORS 163.105(3) grants conversion to parole and release | Board argues authority depends on applicable statutes and matrix rules | Yes; board may override minimum and set parole under matrix |
| What rules govern the Board's release decisions for converted terms | Board lacks clear rules post-conversion | Matrix framework should apply to release timing for converted terms | Matrix governing duration applies to release decisions after conversion; board must use matrix to set release dates |
| Whether rehabilitation findings trigger immediate release or potential matrix-based release | Conversion implies immediate effect and release | Release dates remain controlled by matrix and postponement rules | Converted terms begin to be governed by matrix release rules; postponement and scheduled release provisions apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or. 180 (2000) (explains matrix system and board determines duration of imprisonment)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation framework used by court)
- State v. Dahl, 336 Or. 481 (2004) (contextual interpretation; statutory framework)
- Norris v. Board of Parole, 331 Or. 194 (2000) (discusses rehabilitation timing and parole eligibility)
- Roy v. Palmateer, 339 Or. 533 (2005) (rehabilitation findings and release timing in habeas context)
- Engweiler v. Board of Parole, 343 Or. 536 (2007) (board rules and rehabilitation considerations at issue)
- Fleming v. Board of Parole, 225 Or.App. 578 (2009) (Court of Appeals ruling on board authority and remand questions)
- Severy/Wilson v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 349 Or. 461 (2010) (interprets terms of confinement and rehabilitation findings)