Case Name: PATRICK KELLY, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1985-11-14
Citations: 76 Or. App. 392
Docket Number: 05-84-385; CA A35690
Parties: PATRICK KELLY, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Newman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 76
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 22,
finding of rule violation affirmed, remanded for reconsideration of restitution amount November 14, 1985
PATRICK KELLY, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent.
(05-84-385; CA A35690)
708 P2d 650
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.
Scott McAlister, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Newman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, an inmate of the Oregon State Penitentiary, seeks review of the Disciplinary Committee's finding that he violated Disciplinary Rule 4. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of guilt. We disagree.
In the alternative, petitioner contends that the committee lacked authority to require him to pay restitution for costs to the institution resulting from the rule violation. Respondent concedes that the restitution order was in error, because the record does not contain sufficient evidence of the amount of damage done by petitioner. Lundy v. OSP, 27 Or App 665, 557 P2d 58 (1976). We agree.
Finding of rule violation affirmed; remanded for reconsideration of restitution amount.