Case Name: CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON, Respondent, v. 1979 280ZX, DATSUN, Oregon License No. TCL 860, VIN No. HGS130122481, Defendant in rem, and ROBERT HASH, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1995-12-27
Citations: 138 Or. App. 371
Docket Number: 16-93-05896; CA A87776
Parties: CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON, Respondent, v. 1979 280ZX, DATSUN, Oregon License No. TCL 860, VIN No. HGS130122481, Defendant in rem, and ROBERT HASH, Appellant.
Judges: Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Hasel-ton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 138
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs August 25,
affirmed December 27, 1995,
petition for review denied May 28, 1996 (323 Or 265)
CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON, Respondent, v. 1979 280ZX, DATSUN, Oregon License No. TCL 860, VIN No. HGS130122481, Defendant in rem, and ROBERT HASH, Appellant.
(16-93-05896; CA A87776)
908 P2d 849
Robert Hash, pro se, filed the briefs for appellant.
F. Douglas Harcleroad, District Attorney, and Melinda C. Broome, Assistant District Attorney, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Hasel-ton, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Appellant's property was forfeited in a proceeding that followed his criminal conviction. At the forfeiture proceeding, he claimed that the forfeiture was unconstitutional as an excessive fine/punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Austin v. United States, 509 US_, 113 S Ct 2801, 125 L Ed 2d 488 (1993). On appeal, he has abandoned that argument. Instead, he argues that the forfeiture proceeding violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy and relies on, inter alia, U.S. v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F3d 1210 (9th Cir 1994). Appellant did not make that argument to the trial court, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.
Affirmed.