Case Name: HATTIE COHENS, Petitioner, v. OREGON WOMEN'S CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-01-18
Citations: 94 Or. App. 772
Docket Number: AS-44668W; CA A48458
Parties: HATTIE COHENS, Petitioner, v. OREGON WOMEN’S CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 94
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted November 30, 1988,
affirmed January 18,1989
HATTIE COHENS, Petitioner, v. OREGON WOMEN’S CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent.
(AS-44668W; CA A48458)
766 P2d 1039
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
Philip Schradle, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, an inmate at Oregon Women's Correctional Center, seeks review of a final order of the Superintendent placing her in administrative segregation for one year. The state contends that this court does not have jurisdiction to review an order for administrative segregation under ORS 421.195, the relevant jurisdictional statute. We do. Snow v. OSP, 94 Or App 497, 766 P2d 1038 (1988); Evans v. OSP, 87 Or App 514, 743 P2d 168 (1987).
On the merits, petitioner contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that she represents an immediate and continuing threat to the safety of the institution, its staff, inmates or herself. There is substantial evidence to support the findings, and the findings support the order.
Affirmed.