Case Name: STATE OF OREGON v. POIERIER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1966-01-12
Citations: 242 Or. 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF OREGON v. POIERIER
Judges: Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Sloan, Goodwin, Denecke and Lusk, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 242
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
Argued January 9,
affirmed January 12, 1966
STATE OF OREGON v. POIERIER
409 P. 2d 680
Adelbert G. Clostermann, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
George M. J oseph, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, and John D. Burns, Deputy District Attorney, Portland.
Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Sloan, Goodwin, Denecke and Lusk, Justices.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was sentenced as an habitual criminal under ORS 168.085. He appeals, contending that the statute 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.