Case Name: ARNOLD MAXWELL HARRIS, Appellant, v. CUPP, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1978-08-01
Citations: 35 Or. App. 377
Docket Number: No. 103372, CA 10287
Parties: ARNOLD MAXWELL HARRIS, Appellant, v. CUPP, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Lee, Richardson and Joseph, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 35
Pages: 377–379

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs June 9,
affirmed August 1,
reconsideration denied September 12,
petition for review denied September 26, 1978
ARNOLD MAXWELL HARRIS, Appellant, v. CUPP, Respondent.
(No. 103372, CA 10287)
581 P2d 954
Arnold Maxwell Harris, Salem, filed the brief in propria persona for appellant.
James A. Redden, Attorney General, Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, and William F. Nessly, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Lee, Richardson and Joseph, Judges.
SCHWAB, C. J.

Opinion:
SCHWAB, C. J.
In this case petitioner, an inmate of the Oregon State Penitentiary, sought relief by way of habeas corpus proceedings alleging that inadequate medical treatment was being furnished him by the defendant, Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary. The trial court heard the matter and ruled against petitioner on the merits. On appeal petitioner alleges two procedural errors and one substantive error. Assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner's contention was cognizable in habeas corpus, see Penrod v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 581 P2d 934 (1978), it is sufficient to note that we find no procedural errors as alleged by petitioner. Insofar as the substantive issue is concerned, the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding of the trial court, suffice it to say that there was sufficient evidence. Johnson v. Cupp, 29 Or App 541, 544, 564 P2d 734, rev den (1977).
Affirmed.