Who may not prosecute writ
Source:
Section 34.330 — Who may not prosecute writ, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors034.html.
Notes of Decisions
Habeas corpus is a proper method of questioning the constitutionality of treatment accorded prisoners. Bekins v. Cupp, 274 Or 115, 545 P2d 861 (1976)
Despite abolition of “civil death,” writ of habeas corpusremains available where no other timely process is available to convicted prisoners for challenging unlawful imprisonment, unlawful restraint or other deprivation of rights requiring immediate judicial scrutiny. Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 581 P2d 934 (1978)
Where petitioner claims that post-conviction relief is unavailable and trial court’s dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus was error, question of whether issue could reasonably have been raised on direct appeal thereby barring petitioner from obtaining post-conviction relief must be litigated first. Twitty v. Maass, 95 Or App 715, 770 P2d 963 (1989), on reconsideration 96 Or App 631, 773 P2d 1336 (1989)
Prior to 1983, persons who were found to be insane were not convicted and therefore were not eligible for post-conviction relief; since 1983, post-conviction relief is clearly available to persons under PSRB’s jurisdiction because verdict of guilty except for insanity is conviction, and therefore habeas corpus is not available. Mueller v. Benning, 314 Or 615, 841 P2d 640 (1992)
Court is not required to convert defective habeas corpuspetition alleging post-conviction relief claim into petition for post-conviction relief. Perry v. Zenon, 127 Or App 682, 874 P2d 89 (1994)
Up to date