History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Poierier
242 Or. 384
Or.
1966
Check Treatment
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.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Poierier
Court Name: Oregon Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 12, 1966
Citation: 242 Or. 384
Court Abbreviation: Or.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.