Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD ANTONIO RAGGHIANTI, Appellant
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1971-11-10
Citations: 260 Or. 347
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD ANTONIO RAGGHIANTI, Appellant.
Judges: Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, and Denecke, Holman, Tongue and Howell, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 260
Pages: 347–348

Head Matter:
Argued on review September 10,
dismissed November 10, 1971
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD ANTONIO RAGGHIANTI, Appellant.
490 P2d 490
Howard R. Lonergan, Portland, argued the canse for appellant. With him on the briefs was Jack R. Hannam, Portland.
Jim G. Russell, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argned the canse for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and Jacob B. Tanzer, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, and Denecke, Holman, Tongue and Howell, Justices.

Opinion:
DENECKE, J.
We granted the petition for review because we believed the case contained an important issue of statutory construction. 5 Or App 498 (1971). We now conclude that the defendant is not entitled to raise that issue, and the petition is dismissed.
The defendant was convicted of three counts of possessing three different narcotics, all at the same time and place. The defendant received a separate sentence for each conviction. He now contends that the possession of several different narcotics at the same time and place constitutes but one crime, for which there can be only one sentence.
The petition is dismissed because the defendant pleaded guilty to each count and never objected to being charged, convicted or sentenced for three different crimes of possession of narcotics.
In State v. Kennedy, 250 Or 422, 443 P2d 226 (1968), we held that the defendant could not on appeal successfully contend for the first time that he could not be convicted for the separate crimes of larceny, burglary and concealing stolen property, all arising out of the same transaction. We held the defendant was foreclosed from so contending because he had not raised this issue before the trial court.
Petition dismissed.