FILED: June 28, 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FRANK RUSSELL BAIZE,
BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION,
Judicial Review from Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.
Submitted on record and briefs February 22, 2006.
Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Legal
Services Division, and Daniel M. Carroll, Deputy Public Defender II,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for petitioner.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Judy C.
Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman* and Ortega, Judges.
LANDAU, P. J.
Reversed and remanded.
*Schuman, J., vice Ceniceros, S. J.
LANDAU, P. J.
Petitioner was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment for a minimum of 20 years without the possibility of parole. In 2003, he
requested, and obtained, an aggravated murder review hearing. The Board of Parole and
Post-Prison Supervision (board) found that he was not likely to be rehabilitated within a
reasonable period of time and declined to set a parole release date. Petitioner now seeks
judicial review of that decision. We reverse and remand for a new hearing.
Petitioner argues that the board erred in failing to conduct the aggravated
murder review hearing in the manner provided for contested case hearings in the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), ORS 183.310 to 183.500. The board argues that it
was not obligated to conduct the aggravated murder review hearing in compliance with
the APA requirements for the conduct of contested case hearings. In Larsen v. Board of
Parole, 206 Or App 353, 359, ___ P3d ___ (2006),
however, we held that ORS 163.105 requires that, subject to exceptions not pertinent
here, aggravated murder review hearings be conducted "in the manner prescribed for a
contested case hearing" in ORS chapter 183. That decision is controlling and requires
reversal and a remand for a new hearing.
Petitioner also advances arguments concerning the sufficiency of the
evidence in support of the board's decision, the standard of proof applied, and the
correctness of the board's decision. Those matters are moot, in light of our conclusion
that remand for a new hearing is required. Because the issue is likely to arise on remand,
however, we pause briefly to address two of those additional issues. Petitioner argues
that the board erred in failing to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof
at the aggravated murder review hearing. According to petitioner, that standard of proof
is required under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Since the filing of the briefs in this case, we decided that issue
adversely to petitioner in