State v. Poierier

Jan 12, 1966
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Denecke
PER CURIAM.

Defendant was sentenced as an habitual criminal under ORS 168.085. He appeals, ‍​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‍contending that the *385statute is unconstitutional because it does not distinguish between convictions for felonies which involve danger to the person and felonies ‍​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‍which involve no particular danger to a victim.

The proof was that the defendant formerly had been convicted in Oregon of at least ‍​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‍two nondangerous felonies (larcencies) and one potentially dangerous felony (escape) in addition to the robbery for which his present sentence has ‍​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‍been imposed. The defendant cites no constitutional requirement that the legislature must grade felonies according to their danger to their victims. For ‍​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‍the purposes of segregating habitual offenders, a felony is a felony.

Affirmed.