From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Knighten

Oregon Supreme Court
Dec 20, 1967
248 Or. 465 (Or. 1967)

Opinion

Argued December 4, Affirmed December 20, 1967

IN BANC

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

PHILLIP J. ROTH, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner, Public Defender, and Gary D. Babcock, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, submitted a brief for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

Before PERRY, Chief Justice, and McALLISTER, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, Justices.


Defendant, after a plea of guilty to the charge of obtaining money by false pretenses, was later given an enhanced sentence as required by the Habitual Criminal Code, ORS 168.015 et seq. On this appeal from the sentence, defendant again challenges the unconstitutionality of the alleged discriminatory use of the statute by the prosecutor, and because the statutes do not permit trial by jury, that they are, in effect, ex post facto, that it does not require grand jury proceedings and for other reasons.

Substantially every issue presented by defendant has been decided by this court, adversely to defendant's contention. Howell v. Gladden, 1967, 247 Or. 138, 427 P.2d 978; Haynes v. Gladden (1967), 245 Or. 487, 422 P.2d 679; State v. Poierier (1966) 242 Or. 384, 409 P.2d 680; State v. Byrd (1965) 240 Or. 159, 400 P.2d 522, cert denied 382 U.S. 865; State v. Custer (1965) 240 Or. 350, 401 P.2d 402; State v. Howell (1965) 240 Or. 558, 402 P.2d 89; State v. Ellis (1964) 238 Or. 104, 392 P.2d 647. There is no justification for reconsidering any of them. The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Knighten

Oregon Supreme Court
Dec 20, 1967
248 Or. 465 (Or. 1967)
Case details for

State v. Knighten

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. TERRANCE HARLEY KNIGHTEN, Appellant

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Dec 20, 1967

Citations

248 Or. 465 (Or. 1967)
435 P.2d 305

Citing Cases

State v. Yost

Defendant contends that, upon his demand, the punishment enhancement proceeding should have been tried before…

State v. Quinn

If a defendant is to be punished for it, he is entitled to require the state to prove it to a jury. See also…