Goodspeed v. Oregon State Penitentiary

580 P.2d 1060, 35 Or. App. 121, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2712
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJuly 5, 1978
DocketNo. 11-77-285, CA 9845
StatusPublished

This text of 580 P.2d 1060 (Goodspeed v. Oregon State Penitentiary) 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
Goodspeed v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 580 P.2d 1060, 35 Or. App. 121, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2712 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

RICHARDSON, J.

This is a prison disciplinary proceeding in which petitioner was charged with violation of Major Rule No. 10, Disobedience of an Order, and Major Rule No. 1, Disruptive Behavior. He pleaded not guilty. Following a hearing the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of Disobedience of an Order and dismissed the charge of Disruptive Behavior. The committee recommended he serve one month in segregation and forfeit 30 days’ statutory good time.

The incident arose when petitioner was questioning a prison staff member about a disciplinary report the staff member had filed. The misconduct report indicated he became loud and disruptive and the staff member ordered petitioner to accompany him to see a superior officer. Petitioner refused and sat down. During the hearing petitioner admitted he disobeyed the order but denied being loud or disruptive. He said he had a witness.

Petitioner contends his statement that he had a witness was an inartful request for further investigation which should have been honored by the Disciplinary Committee.

Assuming, solely for the purposes of argument, that petitioner’s statement was a request for investigation, see Geddes v. OSP, 26 Or App 303, 552 P2d 568 (1976), he was not prejudiced by the failure to contact the witness. It appears from the record the witness would have offered evidence respecting the charge of disruptive behavior. That charge was dismissed by the committee.

Petitioner’s contentions respecting the order forfeiting good time are disposed of by Melton v. OSCI, 34 Or App 951, 580 P2d 572 (1978), and Mason v. OSCI, 34 Or App 329, 578 P2d 808 (1978).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Mason v. Oregon State Correctional Institution
578 P.2d 808 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1978)
Melton v. Oregon State Correctional Institution
580 P.2d 572 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1978)
Geddes v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, COR. DIV.
552 P.2d 568 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
580 P.2d 1060, 35 Or. App. 121, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodspeed-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1978.