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)

 

      421.245

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Because this section supplements habeas corpus statutes, Oregon inmate incarcerated out of state as result of transfer under this section retains right to petition for writ of habeas corpus under ORS 34.310 in Oregon to remedy alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Barrett v. Peters, 360 Or 445, 383 P3d 813 (2016)

 

      Fact that inmate was transferred to and confined in out-of-state institution does not prohibit inmate from bringing claims alleging violation of rights under Oregon constitution. Barrett v. Peters, 360 Or 445, 383 P3d 813 (2016)

 

      421.284

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Because this section supplements habeas corpus statutes, Oregon inmate incarcerated out of state as result of transfer under this section retains right to petition for writ of habeas corpus under ORS 34.310 in Oregon to remedy alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Taylor v. Peters, 360 Or 460, 383 P3d 279 (2016)

 

      Fact that inmate was transferred to and confined in out-of-state institution does not prohibit inmate from bringing claims alleging violation of rights under Oregon constitution. Taylor v. Peters, 360 Or 460, 383 P3d 279 (2016)

 

      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)