Legal Opinion

Gomez v. Maass

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 2, 1993No. 92C11371; CA A76309PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRiggs, J.

Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We review for errors of law, ORS 138.220, and affirm.

Petitioner is incarcerated in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU) of the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP). An inmate is placed in IMU if OSP determines that he requires intensive supervision because of his characteristics and propensities. Petitioner challenged his placement in IMU through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition alleged that he was placed in IMU without due process and in violation of his right to be free of ex post facto laws. The trial…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Troxel v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Frady v. MorrowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  2. Jones v. ArmenakisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  3. Weidner v. ZenonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API