Court Opinion

ID: 9790373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:52:16.983935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:29.261904
License: Public Domain

GRABER, P. J. pro tempore,
specially concurring.
I agree with the majority’s result and with all of its reasoning, except for the treatment of petitioner’s last argument. I write separately only to address that point.
One of petitioner’s claims is that OAR 291-05-036 exceeds the department’s statutory authority under ORS 423.020 and ORS 423.075, because the rule permits a fine to be levied “without [providing] acces[s] to the courts” to test the legality of the fine or the inmate’s ability to pay it. As to that narrow claim, we need not look beyond the rule and the statutes authorizing it. ORS 183.400(3). I agree with respondents that that argument amounts to a due process claim, as well as a claim that the rule conflicts with the authorizing statutes, and that the claim is unpersuasive. Accordingly, the rule is valid.
I concur.