Coakley v. Oregon State Correctional Institution

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Coakley v. Oregon State Correctional Institution

730 P.2d 622, 83 Or. App. 145

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 17, 1986

Docket6-294F, 6-323F; CA A37714

StatusPublished

This text of 730 P.2d 622 (Coakley v. Oregon State Correctional Institution) 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

Coakley v. Oregon State Correctional Institution, 730 P.2d 622, 83 Or. App. 145 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of a disciplinary order. On June 23,1985, he took the elastic out of his shorts and used it to “fish” for a book through the sewage system at the segregation unit at the prison. After that incident, his cell was searched; marijuana was found. He admitted that the marijuana was his and that he had acquired it by fishing through the toilet. He was found guilty of destruction of property (Rule 6) and possession of dangerous contraband (Rule 7).¹ He was given three months in segregation for each violation, to be served consecutively.

Petitioner contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a violation of Rule 6, because he did not “destroy” his shorts in the course of making them useless as clothing. The rule’s title is “Destruction of Property.” The rule, however, provides:

“No inmate shall negligently, or except as authorized by staff, willfully destroy, alter, tamper with, abuse, waste, or deface materials or property.”

Removing the elastic from the shorts falls within the scope of the rule, and there is substantial evidence that petitioner violated it.

Respondent concedes that the imposition. of consecutive sanctions in this case violates its rules.

Order modified to eliminate consecutive sanctions; affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of a disciplinary order. On June 23,1985, he took the elastic out of his shorts and used it to “fish” for a book through the sewage system at the segregation unit at the prison. After that incident, his cell was searched; marijuana was found. He admitted that the marijuana was his and that he had acquired it by fishing through the toilet. He was found guilty of destruction of property (Rule 6) and possession of dangerous contraband (Rule 7).¹ He was given three months in segregation for each violation, to be served consecutively.

Petitioner contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a violation of Rule 6, because he did not “destroy” his shorts in the course of making them useless as clothing. The rule’s title is “Destruction of Property.” The rule, however, provides:

“No inmate shall negligently, or except as authorized by staff, willfully destroy, alter, tamper with, abuse, waste, or deface materials or property.”

Removing the elastic from the shorts falls within the scope of the rule, and there is substantial evidence that petitioner violated it.

Respondent concedes that the imposition. of consecutive sanctions in this case violates its rules.

Order modified to eliminate consecutive sanctions; affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 P.2d 622, 83 Or. App. 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coakley-v-oregon-state-correctional-institution-orctapp-1986.