Scrivner v. Oregon State Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Scrivner v. Oregon State Penitentiary

756 P.2d 697, 92 Or. App. 12

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 29, 1988

Docket09-87-447; CA A46451

StatusPublished

This text of 756 P.2d 697 (Scrivner 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

Scrivner v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 756 P.2d 697, 92 Or. App. 12 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Superintendent which required him to serve one month in segregation and pay a $25 fine for a violation of OAR 291-105-015(7), forbidding possession, manufacture or use of narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia.

Petitioner contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a finding that he was in possession of narcotics paraphernalia. Found in petitioner’s cell were a two-inch piece of milk tubing, a plastic spoon, several diagrams and formulas constituting a recipe for making “crank” (a narcotic), and a document bearing names, monetary amounts and small weight measurements. Petitioner’s testimony suggested that the material was his. That was substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner had violated the rule.

Petitioner also contends that the Superintendent had no authority to fine him. Respondent concedes that, under Watson v. OSP, 90 Or App 85, 750 P2d 1188 (1988), imposition of the fine was erroneous.

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 of the Superintendent which required him to serve one month in segregation and pay a $25 fine for a violation of OAR 291-105-015(7), forbidding possession, manufacture or use of narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia.

Petitioner contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a finding that he was in possession of narcotics paraphernalia. Found in petitioner’s cell were a two-inch piece of milk tubing, a plastic spoon, several diagrams and formulas constituting a recipe for making “crank” (a narcotic), and a document bearing names, monetary amounts and small weight measurements. Petitioner’s testimony suggested that the material was his. That was substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner had violated the rule.

Petitioner also contends that the Superintendent had no authority to fine him. Respondent concedes that, under Watson v. OSP, 90 Or App 85, 750 P2d 1188 (1988), imposition of the fine was erroneous.

Fine vacated; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

756 P.2d 697, 92 Or. App. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scrivner-v-oregon-state-penitentiary-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack