Summary
In Dingman, in particular, we noted that the Board already had imposed the condition that the offender have no contact with the victim or the victim's family and that, under the circumstances, it was difficult to determine how the Board could have concluded that it was "necessary" to impose the additional condition of prohibiting the offender from entering the county. Dingman, 114 Or App at 517.
Summary of this case from Martin v. Board of ParoleOpinion
CA A66733
Argued and submitted May 29, 1992
Condition of parole vacated; otherwise affirmed August 5, 1992
Judicial Review from Board of Parole.
Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.
Yuanxing Chen, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were David B. Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Condition of parole prohibiting petitioner from entering or residing in Polk or Yamhill counties vacated; otherwise affirmed.
Petitioner seeks judicial review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions for his parole. Because petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies, we have jurisdiction to review the order. Owens v. Board of Parole, 113 Or. App. 507, 510, 834 P.2d 547 (1992).
Petitioner challenges the condition barring him from entering or residing in Polk or Yamhill counties during the period of parole supervision. We conclude that the Board erred in imposing that condition.
Although we assume that the Board's purpose was the protection of the public, the condition is broader than necessary to accomplish the purposes of protecting the public and reforming petitioner. ORS 137.540(2). The Board did not require the geographical restriction in its initial order. It was added by subsequent Board action. No reason was given for the modification. The protective concern was addressed in the parole condition that petitioner not have any contact with the victim or the victim's family. On this record, because there is no showing that petitioner poses a potential threat not already addressed by other parole conditions, the restriction is unnecessarily broad. Owens v. Board of Parole, supra, 113 Or App at 511-12. See also State v. Ferre, 84 Or. App. 459, 461-62, 734 P.2d 888 (1987).
Condition of parole prohibiting petitioner from entering or residing in Polk or Yamhill counties vacated; otherwise affirmed.