Case Name: EDWARD E. ALLEN, Appellant, v. Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-10-20
Citations: 124 Or. App. 195
Docket Number: 93C-10202; CA A78634
Parties: EDWARD E. ALLEN, Appellant, v. Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
Judges: Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 124
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted August 4,
affirmed October 20, 1993
EDWARD E. ALLEN, Appellant, v. Manfred (Fred) MAASS, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
(93C-10202; CA A78634)
859 P2d 1205
Garrett A. Richardson, Multnomah Defenders, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Rulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment sua sponte denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ORS 34.370(6); ORS 34.710. His petition alleged that his confinement was illegal because he was improperly sentenced. We affirm.
Under ORS 34.370(6), a court may deny, sua sponte, a meritless petition brought under ORS 34.362. However, a petition brought under ORS 34.362 can only challenge conditions of confinement. The court improperly denied plaintiffs petition, which challenged the authority for his confinement under ORS 34.360.
Although the sua sponte denial under ORS 34.370(6) was improper, the error was harmless. Under ORS 34.330(3), habeas corpus relief is not available for issues that could have been addressed in post-conviction proceedings. The alleged error in plaintiffs sentence could have been challenged in a post-conviction proceeding or on direct appeal.
Affirmed.