Chapter 421
421.085
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 32 (1973)
421.105
NOTES OF DECISIONS
The
superintendent has authority to enforce obedience to rules by requiring
restitution for property damage. Curtis v. Ore. State Correctional Institution,
20 Or App 530, 532 P2d 798 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
The
record of disciplinary proceedings must contain a written statement of why the
action was taken. Dean v. Ore. State Correctional Institution, 20 Or App 620,
533 P2d 191 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
Because
a disciplinary proceeding not based on criminal charges is essentially civil in
nature, the petitioner’s right to remain silent and claimed right to counsel
were not properly maintained issues. Archuletta v.
Ore. Women’s Correctional Center, 25 Or App 149, 548 P2d 1006 (1976)
Superintendent
of the Oregon State Penitentiary has authority under this section to impose
consecutive sanctions. Palaia v. Oregon State
Penitentiary, 28 Or App 83, 558 P2d 846 (1977)
There
is no basis for concluding that this section and [former] ORS 421.016 provide
substantive standard independent of Eighth Amendment to United States
Constitution against which court can measure superintendent’s efforts to
protect inmates from assault. Capps v. Atiyeh, 559 F
Supp 894 (1982)
Placement
of prison inmate on controlled feeding status is not punishment but safety
measure and does not violate statutory or constitutional prohibitions against
cruel and unusual punishment. Smith v. Dept. of Corrections, 101 Or App 539,
792 P2d 109 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
421.120
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Whether
an inmate’s work is “meritorious” is a question of judgment of the prison
officials and, as such, becomes a discretionary decision. Sullivan v. State, 15
Or App 149, 515 P2d 193 (1973)
Where
life sentence is commuted, meritorious good time must be computed retroactively
to date of original incarceration. Ferguson v. Cupp,
23 Or App 122, 541 P2d 489 (1975)
Corrections
Division may distinguish between time served and work performed, both of which
entitle prisoner to sentence reduction under ORS 421.120, when determining “good
time served” under ORS 161.610. Haffey v. Keeney, 84
Or App 607, 735 P2d 16 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
“Good
time” deduction provisions apply solely to prisoner’s “term of sentence,” and
not to initial release date set by parole board. Neal v. Maass,
94 Or App 119, 764 P2d 947 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
Plaintiff
stopped accruing statutory good time when he was released on parole and
previously calculated good time release date was thus suspended and defendant
was still within jurisdiction of Department of Corrections when he violated
conditions of parole after that date. Ventris v. Maass, 99 Or App 85, 781 P2d 1224 (1989), Sup Ct review
denied; Asher v. State Board of Parole, 100 Or App 592, 786 P2d 1323
(1990), Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Application of “good
time” deductions to sentence of inmate whose life sentence had been commuted by
Governor to specific number of years, (1981) Vol 41,
p 525
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 53 OLR 33 (1973)
421.121
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Department
of Corrections acted within range of discretion provided in this section when
department adopted rule that included participation in work assignment and
self-improvement programs among criteria to consider in determining reduction
in term of incarceration. Chapman v. Dept. of Corrections, 118 Or App 11, 846
P2d 409 (1993)
Legislature
intended that provision of ORS 137.635 denying term reductions also apply to
felonies committed after November 1, 1989, and sentenced under this section.
Curry v. Grill, 125 Or App 507, 866 P2d 1237 (1993)
For
juveniles committing aggravated murder before June 30, 1995, State Board of
Parole and Post-Prison Supervision determines “term of incarceration” through
setting of parole release date. State ex rel Engweiler v. Cook, 340 Or 373, 133 P3d 904 (2006)
Trial
court’s denial of eligibility for additional good time credits under 2009
amendments does not alter original judgment and, thus, is not appealable. State
v. Portis, 233 Or App 256, 225 P3d 841 (2010)
421.155
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Failure
by the state to provide psychiatric treatment as required by this section is
not an adequate ground for granting a petition for a writ of habeas corpus upon the claim that such
failure has prevented a petitioner from being rehabilitated as quickly as he
might have been. DeBolt v. Cupp,
17 Or App 570, 522 P2d 1395 (1974)
421.165
See
annotations under ORS 421.166.
421.166
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute
Responsibility
for payment of medical bills incurred by persons on temporary leave or work
release status, (1983) Vol 43, p 192
421.180 to 421.195
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Before
a prisoner can be placed in segregation and isolation pending an investigation,
a supervisory official of the institution must make a written finding that
reasonable suspicion exists that a prisoner would constitute a threat to the
security of the institution if the prisoner were not placed in isolation and
segregation pending the investigation, and must give notice of such finding to
the prisoner. Bekins v. Cupp,
274 Or 115, 545 P2d 861 (1976)
421.180
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Record
of disciplinary proceedings must contain written statement of why action was
taken. Dean v. Ore. State Correctional Institution, 20 Or App 620, 533 P2d 191
(1975), Sup Ct review denied
Inmate
temporarily transferred to location other than normal place of confinement
remains in custody of department and subject to department disciplinary rules. Shobe v. Oregon Women’s Correctional Center, 28 Or App 657,
560 P2d 676 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Where
current prison disciplinary rules do not permit disciplining inmate for conduct
while on escape status, superintendent erred in finding petitioner guilty of
disciplinary rule violations that occurred during escape. Alexander v. OSP, 99
Or App 659, 783 P2d 1034 (1989)
421.185
NOTES OF DECISIONS
This
section does not establish the right to representation in every disciplinary
proceeding. Bonney v. Ore. State Penitentiary, 16 Or
App 509, 519 P2d 383 (1974), aff’d 270 Or 79,
526 P2d 1020; Bekins v. Ore. State Penitentiary, 19
Or App 11, 526 P2d 629 (1974)
421.190
NOTES OF DECISIONS
This
section creates statutory rights only to the extent they are also
constitutional rights. Bonney v. Ore. State
Penitentiary, 16 Or App 509, 519 P2d 383 (1974), aff’d
270 Or 79, 526 P2d 1020 (1974)
A
prisoner subject to disciplinary proceedings does not have a constitutional
right to face-to-face confrontation of witnesses. Bonney
v. Ore. State Penitentiary, 16 Or App 509, 519 P2d 383 (1974), aff’d 270 Or 79, 526 P2d 1020 (1974); Dragoo v. Ore. State Penitentiary, 18 Or App 662, 526 P2d
637 (1974)
When
a requested witness is shown to have relevant evidence, when his live testimony
would not pose a threat to institutional safety or correctional goals, and when
his testimony would not tend to unduly prolong the hearing or make it
unmanageable, the inmate should be allowed to present live witnesses. Bonney v. Ore. State Penitentiary, 270 Or 79, 526 P2d 1020
(1974)
The
disciplinary committee’s findings that affidavits personally procured by
petitioner should be viewed with distrust were based upon a nonexistent rule
and were therefore improper. Chochrek v. Ore. State
Penitentiary, 21 Or App 406, 534 P2d 1175 (1975)
Polygraph
evidence is not admissible in prison disciplinary hearings absent a foundation
consisting of the qualifications of the examiner. Williams v. Oregon State
Penitentiary, 29 Or App 455, 564 P2d 706 (1977)
Disciplinary
committee did not abuse its discretion under this section by denying inmate’s
request for a polygraph examination. Sandlin v. Oregon Women’s Correctional
Center, 28 Or App 519, 559 P2d 1308 (1977)
Prisoner
was denied fair hearing where disciplinary committee member made investigation
of disciplinary charge prior to the hearing, and failed to make that fact known
at hearing and to set forth evidence obtained by his investigation. Fritz v.
OSP, 30 Or App 1117, 569 P2d 654 (1977)
In
disciplinary hearing, where inmate requested polygraph examination and did not
object at hearing to consideration of polygraph results, consideration of
polygraph results did not deprive inmate of opportunity for fair hearing. Snow
v. OSP, 308 Or 259, 780 P2d 215 (1989)
Where
evidence consisted solely of conflicting testimony, withdrawing availability of
polygraph from defendant while accepting results of polygraph administered to
accuser denied defendant fair hearing. Caron v. OSP, 141 Or App 347, 918 P2d
120 (1996), modified 143 Or App 238, 923 P2d 672 (1996)
421.194
NOTES OF DECISIONS
“Judicial
review” refers only to direct review of administrative decisions, not to
collateral challenges via writs of habeas
corpus or mandamus or for declaratory relief. State ex rel
Osborne v. Cook, 185 Or App 317, 59 P3d 531 (2002)
421.205
See
also annotations under ORS 421.211 in permanent edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
421.211)
State
does not relinquish jurisdiction over prisoner by transferring prisoner out of
state absent record showing affirmative intention to waive jurisdiction. Riddall v. Cupp, 13 Or App 284,
508 P2d 457 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
421.210
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Unless
an extreme emergency exists, minimal due process requires written notice and a
hearing before a nonconsensual transfer of an inmate to another jurisdiction.
Kessler v. Cupp, 372 F Supp 76 (1974)
421.286
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Nothing
in this section indicates an intent by the legislature to change the rule that
concurrent sentences may be provided only when they may be served in the same
institution. State v. Stewart, 6 Or App 264, 487 P2d 899 (1971)
421.305
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Limitations on
disbursements of inmate compensation, (1996) Vol 48,
p 134
421.442
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Meaning of, and
expenditure limitations applicable to, “any other revenues available to the
account”, (1996) Vol 48, p 134
421.475
NOTE:
Repealed August 13, 1997; ORS 421.476 enacted in lieu
See
annotations under ORS 421.476.
421.476
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
421.475)
Limitations
on disbursements of inmate compensation, (1996) Vol
48, p 134
421.623
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Ranking
requirement applies only to selected sites, not to nominated sites. City of
Wilsonville v. Dept. of Corrections, 326 Or 152, 951 P2d 128 (1997)
421.630
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Review
is available for any factual findings made regarding proposed condition,
regardless of whether condition was accepted or rejected. Dunning v.
Corrections Facility Siting Authority, 325 Or 269,
935 P2d 1209 (1997)
“Substantial
evidence” standard based only on supporting evidence viewed in isolation
adequately safeguards against arbitrary or irrational decision making. City of
Wilsonville v. Dept. of Corrections, 326 Or 152, 951 P2d 128 (1997)