Hetland v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hetland v. Oregon State Penitentiary

777 P.2d 416, 97 Or. App. 693

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 26, 1989

Docket11-87-152; CA A46984

StatusPublished

This text of 777 P.2d 416 (Hetland 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

Hetland v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 777 P.2d 416, 97 Or. App. 693 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of a final order that found that he had violated OAR 291-105-015(A), Rule 1 (disruptive behavior), and imposed sanctions.

First, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of guilty. We disagree.

Petitioner also asserts that the restitution order of $85.33 was “void because no hearing was conducted on the loss, the money was taken in violation of due process of law, [and] the money was taken in breach of the superintendent’s [fiduciary] duty to protect petitioner’s account.” However, he fails to address any of those issues in the text of his argument and cites neither the record nor any authorities. Accordingly, the assignment of error is inadequately presented for review. See ORAP 7.19(5).

Finally, petitioner argues, respondent concedes, and we agree that the $100 fine is invalid. Watson v. OSP, 90 Or App 85, 750 P2d 1188 (1988).

Fine vacated; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of a final order that found that he had violated OAR 291-105-015(A), Rule 1 (disruptive behavior), and imposed sanctions.

First, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of guilty. We disagree.

Petitioner also asserts that the restitution order of $85.33 was “void because no hearing was conducted on the loss, the money was taken in violation of due process of law, [and] the money was taken in breach of the superintendent’s [fiduciary] duty to protect petitioner’s account.” However, he fails to address any of those issues in the text of his argument and cites neither the record nor any authorities. Accordingly, the assignment of error is inadequately presented for review. See ORAP 7.19(5).

Finally, petitioner argues, respondent concedes, and we agree that the $100 fine is invalid. Watson v. OSP, 90 Or App 85, 750 P2d 1188 (1988).

Fine vacated; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 P.2d 416, 97 Or. App. 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hetland-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack