Court Opinion

ID: 9550849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:43:30.682801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:33.449930
License: Public Domain

PORT, J.,
dissenting.
. I dissent from that portion of the court’s opinion which holds that upon defendant’s sentence under the Habitual Criminals Act the court had power to impose *617a fine of $2,500 thereunder in addition to the enhanced sentence imposed. ORS 168.085 provides:
“* * * [A]ny person who has been convicted of a principal felony and who, pursuant to ORS 168.015 to 168.080, is found by the court to have been formerly convicted of a felony, shall be sentenced, in the court’s discretion, as follows:
# * $
“(3) Where three or more former convictions of felony are found by the court, imprisonment for any term up to and including imprisonment for life.”
Following the filing of an information pursuant to ORS 168.055, ORS 168.065 provides:
“* * * [T]he court of conviction of the principal offense shall:
C(# # # # #
“(6) If the defendant admits, or the court otherwise finds, the former conviction alleged, vacate any sentence imposed upon conviction of the principal offense, impose any new sentence permitted or required by law '* * (Emphasis supplied.)
Nothing in the foregoing sections in my view authorizes the imposition, as a part of the enhanced penalty imposed, of a fine, whether as here originally imposed under the sentence vacated, or independently as a part of the new enhanced sentence. Had the legislature so intended, it would have said so.