806 P.2d 728 | Or. Ct. App. | 1991
Defendant appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, arguing that the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum allowed by law. ORS 138.040(1)(b)(A). The issue is whether the trial court was authorized to suspend defendant’s driver’s license for three years, pursuant to ORS 809.420(2), which provides, in part:
“(2) * * * The period of suspension or revocation under this schedule shall be:
“(a) One year for a first offense * * *.
“(b) Three years for a second offense, where the commission of the second offense and a conviction for a separate offense occur within a five-year period.”
In June, 1989, defendant was arrested for DUII. Because he was allowed to enter a diversion program, ORS 813.220, he was not prosecuted at that time.
If an individual commits two DUII offenses, ORS 809.420(2)(b) authorizes a three-year suspension, regardless
Affirmed.
In October, 1989, the language of ORS 809.420(2)(b) was changed by the legislature. The statute had previously authorized a three-year license suspension for second offenses “committed within five years of a prior conviction.” See State v. Carney, 94 Or App 302, 765 P2d 232 (1988) (interpreting former ORS 809.420). Defendant makes an ex post facto argument, contending that the former statute should be applied to this case. However, that argument has no merit, because thé sanctions for repeat DUII offenders were modified before he committed the second offense. Moreover, the argument was not adequately preserved below.