Santana-Betancourt v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Santana-Betancourt v. Oregon State Penitentiary

685 P.2d 479, 69 Or. App. 329, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3932

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 1, 1984

Docket11-83-112; CA A30511

StatusPublished

This text of 685 P.2d 479 (Santana-Betancourt 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

Santana-Betancourt v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 685 P.2d 479, 69 Or. App. 329, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3932 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of the final order of the Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary finding petitioner guilty of violating OAR 291-105-015(4) (assault) and OAR 291-105-015(10) (disobedience of an order), contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the findings of the violations.

There is sufficient evidence to support the finding that petitioner violated rule 4; however, there is insufficient evidence to permit a finding that petitioner violated rule 10. That rule requires that the order be communicated to the inmate. Here the record shows that petitioner speaks Spanish and that he did not understand the order given to him. The superintendent concedes that the finding of disobedience cannot stand.

Accordingly, we reverse that part of the order finding that petitioner violated OAR 291-105-015(10). In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of the final order of the Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary finding petitioner guilty of violating OAR 291-105-015(4) (assault) and OAR 291-105-015(10) (disobedience of an order), contending that there is insufficient evidence to support the findings of the violations.

There is sufficient evidence to support the finding that petitioner violated rule 4; however, there is insufficient evidence to permit a finding that petitioner violated rule 10. That rule requires that the order be communicated to the inmate. Here the record shows that petitioner speaks Spanish and that he did not understand the order given to him. The superintendent concedes that the finding of disobedience cannot stand.

Accordingly, we reverse that part of the order finding that petitioner violated OAR 291-105-015(10). In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 P.2d 479, 69 Or. App. 329, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santana-betancourt-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1984.