Newton v. Cupp

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Newton v. Cupp

465 P.2d 734, 1 Or. App. 645, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 742

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 26, 1970

DocketCase 67914

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 465 P.2d 734 (Newton v. Cupp) 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

Newton v. Cupp, 465 P.2d 734, 1 Or. App. 645, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 742 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

FOLEY, J.

Petitioner is a prisoner in the Oregon State Penitentiary under two concurrent sentences of 10 and 5 years. The validity of these sentences is not contested in these proceedings. Without the aid of counsel he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is a Negro and has been discriminated against while in the custody of defendant.

He alleged that in a pending assault felony case against him in Marion County Circuit Court, Judge Val D. Sloper had denied his motions before he “had a chance to describer (sic) or explain * * * [them]” and that Judge Sloper held him in contempt of court when “the only thing * * * [he] was trying to do, was protect his rights in court.” He also charged that while he was taken to and from the county courthouse the deputy sheriffs subjected him to mental harassment; that he and another Negro have been charged with assault and battery on prison guards, but white men who did the same thing have not been prosecuted; that he has been ordered into the security and isolation building pending trial of the felony assault charge; that his mother has been barred from visiting him in the security and isolation building; and that his mail has been held up “for quite sometime.” He states these allegations constitute cruel and *647 unusual punishment. The trial court, Judge Douglas L. Hay, peremptorily dismissed the petition because it “fads to state facts sufficient to constitute grounds for relief * *

"We agree with the trial court. None of the adegations relate to the legality of petitioner’s present incarceration nor set forth cruel or unusual punishment under any constitutional sanctions. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of imprisonment and not to supervise administration of the institution. ORS 34.310; Grenfell v. Gladden, 241 Or 190, 193, 405 P2d 532 (1965), cert den 382 US 998, 86 S Ct 588, 15 L Ed 2d 486 (1966); Gibbs v. Gladden, 227 Or 102, 359 P2d 540, cert den 368 US 862, 82 S Ct 105, 7 L Ed 2d 58 (1961).

Petitioner’s other assignments are likewise without merit.

Affirmed.

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

FOLEY, J.

Petitioner is a prisoner in the Oregon State Penitentiary under two concurrent sentences of 10 and 5 years. The validity of these sentences is not contested in these proceedings. Without the aid of counsel he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is a Negro and has been discriminated against while in the custody of defendant.

He alleged that in a pending assault felony case against him in Marion County Circuit Court, Judge Val D. Sloper had denied his motions before he “had a chance to describer (sic) or explain * * * [them]” and that Judge Sloper held him in contempt of court when “the only thing * * * [he] was trying to do, was protect his rights in court.” He also charged that while he was taken to and from the county courthouse the deputy sheriffs subjected him to mental harassment; that he and another Negro have been charged with assault and battery on prison guards, but white men who did the same thing have not been prosecuted; that he has been ordered into the security and isolation building pending trial of the felony assault charge; that his mother has been barred from visiting him in the security and isolation building; and that his mail has been held up “for quite sometime.” He states these allegations constitute cruel and *647 unusual punishment. The trial court, Judge Douglas L. Hay, peremptorily dismissed the petition because it “fads to state facts sufficient to constitute grounds for relief * *

"We agree with the trial court. None of the adegations relate to the legality of petitioner’s present incarceration nor set forth cruel or unusual punishment under any constitutional sanctions. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of imprisonment and not to supervise administration of the institution. ORS 34.310; Grenfell v. Gladden, 241 Or 190, 193, 405 P2d 532 (1965), cert den 382 US 998, 86 S Ct 588, 15 L Ed 2d 486 (1966); Gibbs v. Gladden, 227 Or 102, 359 P2d 540, cert den 368 US 862, 82 S Ct 105, 7 L Ed 2d 58 (1961).

Petitioner’s other assignments are likewise without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 P.2d 734, 1 Or. App. 645, 1970 Ore. App. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-cupp-orctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack