Case Name: MARK DAVID TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1975-01-14
Citations: 20 Or. App. 55
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARK DAVID TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Thornton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 20
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
Argued December 18, 1974,
affirmed January 14, 1975
MARK DAVID TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent.
530 P2d 526
John K. Hoover, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lee Johnson, Attorney General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Thornton, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review of disciplinary action taken by the Superintendent of Oregon State Penitentiary. Petitioner was convicted in circuit court of attempted murder for his assault upon another inmate while both were serving sentences in OSP, and received a consecutive prison term. Subsequently, for the same assault the Superintendent imposed two years in segregation sanction under Prison Rule No. 4. He claims he was thus subjected to double jeopardy for the same offense.
Where the administrative sanction is first and the criminal sentence second, it is not double jeopardy. State v. Kennedy, 253 Or 145, 453 P2d 658 (1969); State v. Bowling, 1 Or App 103, 459 P2d 454 (1969).
It is no different when, as at bar, the sentence and the sanction are reversed in order. The criminal offense is prosecuted because a specific criminal law is violated; the sanction is imposed because the petitioner's act is a breach of prison discipline and sanctions therefor are necessary to preserve order in the institution.
Affirmed.