By Christopher Zoukis Tyrone Grayson was on parole after serving a 20-year sentence for attempted robbery and a consecutive 10-year sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm when he committed another offense. He was charged and received a new 12-year prison term, then ordered to serve the balance of his 20-year sentence by the parole
By Michael Brodheim In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re Shaputis, 53 Cal. 4th 192 (Cal. 2011) [PLN, Aug. 2012, p.16], lower courts in California continue to struggle with the issue of whether a denial of parole predicated on “lack of insight” is supported, in any given case, by the
By Michael Brodheim In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re Shaputis, 53 Cal. 4th 192 (Cal. 2011) [PLN, Aug. 2012, p.16], lower courts in California continue to struggle with the issue of whether a denial of parole predicated on “lack of insight” is supported, in any given case, by the
By Prison Legal News
For at least the fifth time, a state court has ordered the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) to provide more than boilerplate reasons for its decisions. There is little reason to believe, however, that the Board has any intention of complying.
Oregon law requires the Board to “state in writing the detailed bases of its decisions.” The Board is exempt, however, from a statutory requirement to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a Board decision in 1997, holding that despite the statutory exemption, the Board was required to “make findings of fact and provide an explanation as to why its findings lead to the conclusions that it reaches.” See: Martin v. Board of Parole, 147 Ore. App. 37, 934 P.2d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board must provide “some kind of an explanation connecting the facts of the case (which would include the facts found, if any) and the result reached.” See: Martin v. Board of Parole, 327 Ore. 147, 957 P.2d 1210 (Or. 1998). This is commonly referred to as “the substantial-reason requirement.”
In 1999, the Board asked the Oregon legislature to overrule Martin. The proposed law change expressly relieved the Board of a duty to “explain how [its] order is supported by the facts and the evidence in the record.”
The Oregon judiciary, however, did not appreciate such overt disrespect for its authority. James Nass, appellate legal counsel for the Oregon Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, opposed the Board’s proposed legislation, SB 401.
We have profiled every prison within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Learn about each prison’s location, security level, educational and recreational offerings, and much more.
The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. In some jurisdictions, this may be considered attorney advertising. Merely reading this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Our firm affiliates with local counsel licensed in their respective jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis. These local counsels are independent and are not employees of the firm. Please remember that when we reference our firm’s experience, this generally includes the combined expertise of both the firm and its frequently used local counsel.
The Law Office of Grant Smaldone is headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina. This is the only fully staffed office. References to any other city or state in any materials or anywhere on this website do not mean or otherwise indicate that the firm maintains an office in that location or has lawyers physically located in that city or state. The attorneys at the firm are licensed to practice law in only the jurisdictions listed in their biographies.
Every case is different, and any prior results mentioned on this website do not guarantee or suggest a similar result in other matters. There is no guarantee or assurance of success for any client.
The Law Office of Grant Smaldone limits its practice to South Carolina state and cases involving federal law and procedure.
