Preview:

FILED: February 4, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON EDGAR LEE WEEMS, Petitioner on Review,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION,
Respondent on Review.

(CA A128497; SC S056672)

MICHAEL A. ROBERTS, Petitioner on Review,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE AND >POST-PRISON SUPERVISION,
Respondent on Review.

(CA A124125; SC S056741)
(Consolidated for argument and opinion)
En Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Argued and submitted September 18, 2009.
Carolyn Bys, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, Salem, argued the cause for
petitioner on review.  With her on the briefs were Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Irene B. Taylor,

Deputy Public Defender.
Jeremy C. Rice, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him
on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.

LINDER, J.

The decisions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.

*On judicial review of final order of Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, dated November 24,

2004. 221 Or App 70, 190 P3d 381 (2008).  On judicial review of  final order of Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, dated October 9, 2003. 221 Or App 278, 190 P3d 397 (2008).
LINDER, J.
The principal issue presented in these two cases is whether the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board) may consider an offender's full criminal history and personal background in imposing special conditions of post-prison supervision, or whether the board must limit its review to the
facts and circumstances of an offender's current crimes of conviction.(1)  In these cases, based on each petitioner's criminal history, the board imposed special conditions that are appropriate for sex offenders, even though petitioners were currently serving sentences for nonsexual crimes.  We conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that the board is authorized to impose special conditions of post-prison supervision based on an offender's criminal history and background, rather than based only on the current crimes of conviction. Weems v. Board of Parole, 221 Or App 70, 75, 190 P3d 381 (2008); Roberts v. Board of Parole, 221 Or App 278, 282, 190 P3d 397 (2008).  We further conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that the record before the board adequately supported the board's decision to impose the particular special sex offender conditions that it imposed in each of these cases. Weems, 221 Or App at 76-77; Roberts, 221 Or App at 282.  We therefore affirm the decisions of the Court of Appeals.
In describing the facts and procedural history of the two cases before us, we begin with petitioner Weems's case, because the Court of Appeals decided that case first, and then relied on its decision in Weems to resolve petitioner Roberts's case. See Weems, 221 Or App 70; Roberts, 221 Or App at 282.
Weems was convicted of several drug crimes and sentenced to a period of incarceration for those crimes, followed by post-prison supervision.  Although none of Weems's current crimes of conviction were sexual offenses, his criminal history included previous charges of sexual offenses.  In particular, he had been arrested in 1991 on charges of sodomy in the first and second degrees.  The sodomy charges were dismissed, for reasons that are not a matter of record.  In 1993, Weems was arrested on charges of sexual abuse in the first and second degrees.  Those charges were resolved through a plea agreement in which Weems pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of menacing in exchange for dismissal of the sex abuse charges. In addition to those sexual offense charges, Weems had two previous convictions for endangering the welfare of a minor and other drug convictions.
Before Weems's scheduled release to post-prison supervision for his current drug convictions, the Department of Corrections (the DOC) prepared a proposed release plan for him.  In submitting that proposed plan to the board, the DOC included Weems's 2004 sex offender risk assessment, which outlined Weems's past sexual offense charges and included information that Weems had reported that the alleged victim of the 1991 sodomy charges was the 9- or 10-year-old son of one of Weems's friends.  In the release plan, in addition to standard conditions, the DOC recommended several special conditions of post

Download S056672.pdf

Oregon Law