Oregon Statutes 34.330 – Who may not prosecute writ
A person may not prosecute a writ of habeas corpus if:
Terms Used In Oregon Statutes 34.330
- Habeas corpus: A writ that is usually used to bring a prisoner before the court to determine the legality of his imprisonment. It may also be used to bring a person in custody before the court to give testimony, or to be prosecuted.
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- Prosecute: To charge someone with a crime. A prosecutor tries a criminal case on behalf of the government.
- United States: includes territories, outlying possessions and the District of Columbia. See Oregon Statutes 174.100
- Writ: A formal written command, issued from the court, requiring the performance of a specific act.
(1) The person is imprisoned or restrained by virtue of process issued by a court of the United States, or a judge, commissioner or other officer thereof, in cases where such courts, or judges or officers thereof, have exclusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the commencement of actions, suits or other proceedings in such court, or before such commissioner or other officer.
(2) The person is imprisoned or restrained by virtue of the judgment of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such judgment.
(3) Except as provided in ORS § 138.530, the person is eligible to obtain post-conviction relief pursuant to ORS § 138.510 to 138.680.
(4) The person is eligible to seek judicial review of a final order of the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision under ORS § 144.335 but the person fails to seek judicial review of the order in a timely manner.
(5) The person seeks judicial review of a final order of the board under ORS § 144.335 but the Court of Appeals:
(a) Summarily affirms the order of the board on the grounds that the person failed to present a substantial question of law;
(b) Otherwise disposes of the judicial review on the merits of the petitioner’s issues on judicial review; or
(c) Dismisses the judicial review because of a procedural defect. [Amended by 1959 c.636 § 22; 2001 c.661 § 2; 2003 c.576 § 311; 2007 c.411 § 2]