Opinion
Argued December 18, 1974
Affirmed January 14, 1975
Judicial Review of disciplinary order of the Superintendent of Oregon State Penitentiary.
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.
AFFIRMED.
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 P.2d 658 (1969); State v. Bowling, 1 Or. App. 103, 459 P.2d 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.