Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALBERT LEWIS HAMILTON, aka Albert Lewis Goldsby, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-06-10
Citations: 229 Or. App. 94
Docket Number: 001239970; A135407
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALBERT LEWIS HAMILTON, aka Albert Lewis Goldsby, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Deits, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 229
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 30, 2008,
affirmed June 10,
petition for review allowed October 7, 2009 (347 Or 258)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALBERT LEWIS HAMILTON, aka Albert Lewis Goldsby, Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
001239970; A135407
209 P3d 851
Robin A. Jones, Senior Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Legal Services Division, Office of Public Defense Services.
Albert L. Hamilton filed appellant’s supplemental brief pro se.
Janet A. Klapstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Deits, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant assigns error to the failure to merge his robbery convictions under ORS 161.067(2). We determined in State v. Williams, 229 Or App 79, 209 P3d 842 (2009), in similar circumstances, that, under ORS 161.067(2), robbery crimes committed against more than one victim do not merge. Defendant's pro se supplemental brief challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences without jury findings, an issue decided against him by Oregon v. Ice, 555 US-, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009).
Affirmed.