Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

HARRINGTON v. OSP, 41 Or. App. 349 (1979)

597 P.2d 1252

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1979-07-30
Topic
general

HARRINGTON v. OSP, 41 Or. App. 349 (1979) 597 P.2d 1252 JEAN HARRINGTON, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent. No. 02-79-110, CA 13693Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued June 21, 1979 Affirmed July 30, 1979 Judicial Review from Corrections Division.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed HARRINGTON v. OSP, 41 Or. App. 349 (1979). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

HARRINGTON v. OSP,41 Or. App. 349(1979)
597 P.2d 1252
JEAN HARRINGTON,Petitioner,v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY,Respondent.
No. 02-79-110, CA 13693
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued June 21, 1979
Affirmed July 30, 1979
Judicial Review from Corrections Division.
David E. Groom, Public Defender's office, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Scott McAlister, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Lee, Gillette, and Campbell, Judges.
GILLETTE, J.

Affirmed.Page 350

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]Page 351
GILLETTE, J.
In this prison discipline case, petitioner was charged with and found guilty of violations of prison disciplinary Rule 1 (OAR 291-40-050(1)) — Disruptive Behavior1and Rule 13 (a) (OAR 291-40-050(13)(a)) — Conspiracy to Commit a Rule Violation.2We affirm.

This is another of the cases arising out of a concerted work stoppage or sit-down strike which occurred at the Oregon State Penitentiary beginning on February 7, 1979.See Calhounv. OSP,41 Or. App. 339,597 P.2d 1250(decided this date). As was true inCalhoun,the record here is sparse. It is sufficient, however, to establish that petitioner was an actual participant in the work stoppage in the prison laundry on the day in question. Accordingly, his conviction for violation of Rule 1 is affirmed.See Calhoun v. OSP, supra.

Respondent argues, and we agree, that — at least under the circumstances of this case — the disciplinary committee was entitled to find petitioner's public joining of the strike constituted "conspiracy" as that term is defined in Rule 13 (a),viz.,"* * * an agreement with any other person(s) to * * * engage in or cause rule violations." The joint action of petitioner and the others permits the reasonable inference of an actual, even if unspoken, agreement to stop work at the prison.

Petitioner relies onRobertson v. OSP,35 Or. App. 591,582 P.2d 32(1978), but that case will not aid him.Page 352Robertsoninvolved a discussion of a possible sit-down strike between inmates. The discussion never resulted in any agreement. Here, by contrast, there was a strike. Strikes are concerted actions; agreement lies at their heart. The committee was entitled to view petitioner's act of joining the strike as a manifestation of an agreement.

Affirmed.Page 353
  1. OAR 291-40-050(1) provides:"Disruptive Behavior. No inmate shall engage in the advocation, encouragement, promotion, or creation of a disturbance.

    "A 'disturbance' is a substantial disorder characterized by unruly, noisy, or violent conduct which disrupts the orderly administration of the institution or creates an unreasonably annoying condition which poses a direct threat to the security and/or safety of the institution. ↩
  2. OAR 291-40-050(13)(a) provides:
    "No inmate shall enter into an agreement with any other person(s) to:


    "(a) Engage in or cause rule violation(s); * * *" ↩