Braly v. Dept. of Corrections

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Braly v. Dept. of Corrections

489 P.3d 628, 312 Or. App. 726

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 30, 2021

DocketA174144

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 489 P.3d 628 (Braly v. Dept. of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Braly v. Dept. of Corrections, 489 P.3d 628, 312 Or. App. 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted May 7, OAR 291-100-0110(1)(d)(A) held valid June 30, 2021

JOHN THOMAS BRALY, JR., Petitioner, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. Department of Corrections A174144 489 P3d 628

John Thomas Braly Jr. filed the brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM OAR 291-100-0110(1)(d)(A) held valid. Cite as 312 Or App 726 (2021) 727

PER CURIAM Under ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges OAR 291- 100-0110(1)(d)(A), a rule adopted by the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) that provides guidance in the imple- mentation of a sentencing statute, ORS 137.635. According to petitioner, the rule is invalid because “it exceeds DOC’s statutory authority and violates express constitutional pro- visions and prohibitions to the contrary and the plain lan- guage of the statute, ORS 137.635.” Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we reject petitioner’s contentions and conclude that the challenged rule is valid. See ORS 183.400(4) (court shall declare a rule invalid only if the rule violates constitutional provisions, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopted the rule, or was adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures). OAR 291-100-0110(1)(d)(A) held valid.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Submitted May 7, OAR 291-100-0110(1)(d)(A) held valid June 30, 2021

JOHN THOMAS BRALY, JR., Petitioner, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. Department of Corrections A174144 489 P3d 628

John Thomas Braly Jr. filed the brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM OAR 291-100-0110(1)(d)(A) held valid. Cite as 312 Or App 726 (2021) 727

PER CURIAM Under ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges OAR 291- 100-0110(1)(d)(A), a rule adopted by the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) that provides guidance in the imple- mentation of a sentencing statute, ORS 137.635. According to petitioner, the rule is invalid because “it exceeds DOC’s statutory authority and violates express constitutional pro- visions and prohibitions to the contrary and the plain lan- guage of the statute, ORS 137.635.” Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we reject petitioner’s contentions and conclude that the challenged rule is valid. See ORS 183.400(4) (court shall declare a rule invalid only if the rule violates constitutional provisions, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency that adopted the rule, or was adopted without compliance with applicable rulemaking procedures). OAR 291-100-0110(1)(d)(A) held valid.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 P.3d 628, 312 Or. App. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braly-v-dept-of-corrections-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack