Tarabochia v. Washburn , 302 Or. App. 638 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                 638
    Submitted February 7, reversed and remanded March 4, 2020
    LOREN TARABOCHIA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Susan WASHBURN,
    Superintendent,
    Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution,
    Defendant-Respondent.
    Umatilla County Circuit Court
    19CV38852; A172349
    458 P3d 734
    Robert W. Collins, Jr., Judge.
    Loren Christopher Tarabochia filed the briefs pro se.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
    Solicitor General, and Dashiell L. Farewell, Assistant
    Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
    Mooney, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
    Reversed and remanded.
    Cite as 
    302 Or App 638
     (2020)                                              639
    PER CURIAM
    Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for
    a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas
    corpus, alleging that the superintendent had failed to credit
    him for time served on several prison sentences. The super-
    intendent filed a response, arguing that claim preclusion
    barred the present petition as petitioner had previously
    sought a writ, which had been denied without prejudice.1
    The trial court entered a general judgment dismissing the
    present case without prejudice, indicating that the petition
    was denied as meritless, and including a money award in
    favor of the superintendent for $100 for attorney fees. The
    judgment contains no explanation of the disposition. On
    petitioner’s appeal from that judgment, the superinten-
    dent concedes that the trial court erred because it failed to
    explain the reason for its dismissal. As explained below, we
    accept that concession.
    In Jones v. Armenakis, 
    144 Or App 23
    , 26, 
    925 P2d 130
     (1996), adh’d to as modified on recons, 
    146 Or App 198
    ,
    
    932 P2d 99
     (1997), we explained that a judgment dismiss-
    ing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice
    “should indicate the petition’s shortcomings so that they can
    be remedied.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omit-
    ted.) See also ORS 34.370(3) (judgment entered on court’s
    own motion denying petition as meritless “shall explain to
    the parties the reason for the denial”). Petitioner asks that
    we consider the merits of his claim and conclude that his
    petition does state a claim. However, as we explained in our
    decision on reconsideration in Jones, when a case is in this
    posture, we are not in a position to rule on the merits. 
    146 Or App at 200
    .
    Reversed and remanded.
    1
    On appeal, the superintendent notes that her argument in that regard was
    legally incorrect, although its reason for conceding on appeal is the flaw in the
    judgment as described below.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A172349

Citation Numbers: 302 Or. App. 638

Filed Date: 3/4/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/10/2024