Case Name: In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of LADONNA JEAN STONE, Appellant, v. DRIVER AND MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES BRANCH (DMV), Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2001-08-15
Citations: 176 Or. App. 165
Docket Number: 99C-12472; CA A108218
Parties: In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of LADONNA JEAN STONE, Appellant, v. DRIVER AND MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES BRANCH (DMV), Respondent.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Brewer, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 176
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 7, 2000,
affirmed August 15, 2001
In the Matter of the Suspension of the Driving Privileges of LADONNA JEAN STONE, Appellant, v. DRIVER AND MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES BRANCH (DMV), Respondent.
99C-12472; CA A108218
31 P3d 1087
John C. Rich argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Brendan C. Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Brewer, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner appeals a judgment upholding a final order of the Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Branch of the Oregon Department of Transportation (DMV) retroactively-increasing the period of revocation of her driving privileges from five to eight years, pursuant to ORS 809.410(1). She argues that the statute violates state and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy, as well as the federal constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder. We have rejected each of those arguments in Mannelin v. DMV, 176 Or App 9, 31 P3d 438 (2001).
Petitioner also argues that the increase in the period of revocation violates her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, because she was given only one week's notice before the increase was imposed. Petitioner simply asserts the foregoing legal conclusion, however. She fails to explain why the notice was inadequate, much less why any inadequacy was of constitutional magnitude. We reject the argument without further discussion.
Affirmed.