In a significant ruling, the Oregon Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to postpone Brian Douglas Hessel's release from prison for two years. The court found that Hessel engaged in serious misconduct while incarcerated, which justified the delay in his parole. This ruling affects Hessel, who was convicted of multiple murders, and highlights the board's authority to make decisions based on inmate behavior.
The case, Hessel v. Board of Parole, was filed on June 10, 2026, under docket number A187878. Hessel, who has a history of violent crimes, was seeking judicial review of the board's decision to extend his prison term due to his actions while serving his sentence. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of maintaining security within correctional facilities and the consequences of inmate misconduct.
Hessel's legal troubles began with his conviction in 1989 for six counts of murder and two counts of aggravated murder, resulting in a life sentence with a 30-year minimum term. After a hearing in January 2022, the board set his release date for April 10, 2022. However, during a subsequent hearing in March 2022, Hessel was found to have violated prison rules by sending a note to a prison employee asking her to be his valentine. This note led to the board's decision to postpone his release, citing the violation of two Department of Corrections (DOC) rules: Compromising an Employee and Disrespect I.
The board's initial ruling faced scrutiny, prompting Hessel to appeal. The court previously reviewed the board's order and found it lacking in substantial reasoning, leading to a remand for further explanation. Upon remand, the board provided additional details about why Hessel's conduct constituted serious misconduct. They noted that his actions were not only a violation of prison rules but also posed a significant risk to the security of the institution.
Judge Kamins, who presided over the case, affirmed the board's decision, stating, "The Board determined your violations for Compromising an Employee and Disrespect I amounted to 'serious' misconduct for several reasons." The board explained that Hessel's history of violence toward women and the potential risks associated with compromising a prison employee contributed to their decision to extend his parole eligibility.
The court's ruling highlighted the board's reasoning that Hessel's actions were a serious threat to the safety and security of the correctional facility. The board classified Compromising an Employee as a major rule violation, which could lead to significant penalties, including disciplinary segregation. Hessel's prior convictions and his demeanor during the parole hearing further influenced the board's determination that he posed a risk if released.
The impact of this ruling is significant for inmates seeking parole in Oregon. It reinforces the board's authority to deny parole based on inmate behavior and the potential risks that behavior may pose to prison security. The decision serves as a reminder that serious misconduct can have lasting consequences, particularly for individuals with a violent history.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for how the board evaluates inmate behavior and the seriousness of rule violations. It underscores the importance of maintaining order and safety within correctional facilities, especially for inmates with histories of violence. The board's interpretation of what constitutes serious misconduct will likely influence future cases involving parole eligibility.
As for Hessel, the ruling can be appealed, but the court's affirmation of the board's decision suggests that any further challenges may face significant hurdles. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling, but it may encourage other inmates to consider the implications of their actions while incarcerated.