Case Name: EDMUND EVANS, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-05-24
Citations: 96 Or. App. 743
Docket Number: 11-87-187, 11-87-291, 11-87-297, 11-87-303; (CA A47020, A47021, A47022, A47023
Parties: EDMUND EVANS, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 96
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted April 26,
fines vacated in CA A47021 and CA A47023; otherwise affirmed May 24, 1989
EDMUND EVANS, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent.
(11-87-187, 11-87-291, 11-87-297, 11-87-303; (CA A47020 (Control), A47021, A47022, A47023)
(Cases consolidated)
773 P2d 1365
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
Douglas F. Zier, 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 Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this consolidated appeal, petitioner seeks review of four final orders of the Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, each finding that he had violated a disciplinary rule. He first contends that various constitutional rights were violated, because the two hearings from which the four orders resulted were held in his absence. However, there is evidence to support the hearings officer's conclusion that he had waived his right to appear. OAR 291-105-056(2).
Petitioner next contends that a $25 fine imposed in one order and a $100 fine in another order are unlawful. We agree. Watson v. OSP, 90 Or App 85, 750 P2d 1188 (1988).
Fines vacated in CA A47021 and CA A47023; otherwise affirmed.