STATE v. KILLMON, 246 Or. 465 (1967)

425 P.2d 746

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM W. KILLMON, Appellant.

Oregon Supreme Court.Submitted March 21, 1967
Affirmed March 29, 1967 United States Supreme Court denied certiorari January 22, 1968

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

ALAN F. DAVIS, Judge.

Affirmed.

IN BANC

William W. Killmon, in propria persona.

George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, and Jacob B. Tanzer, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, for respondent.

Before PERRY, Chief Justice, and McALLISTER, SLOAN, O’CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and LUSK, Justices.

O’CONNELL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment sentencing defendant as an habitual criminal.

Page 466

Defendant was convicted of the crime of larceny from the person and was sentenced to five years in the Oregon State Penitentiary.[1] Thereafter the original sentence was vacated and defendant was sentenced as an habitual criminal to ten years in the Oregon State Penitentiary. Defendant had been convicted of felonies on three previous occasions.

Defendant has raised questions as to the applicability of the habitual criminal act with respect to each of the former convictions. We shall consider defendant’s attack on only one of these because it is dispositive of the case.

Defendant had been convicted of a felony in the state of Washington. The sentence was suspended. Defendant argues that because the sentence was suspended the former judgment was not final and did not constitute a prior conviction. The contrary is established in State v. Glenn, 245 Or. 70, 420 P.2d 60 (1966).

The former conviction being valid, the trial court had the authority to impose the enhanced sentence under the habitual criminal act.

Judgment affirmed.

[1] Defendant was originally convicted of armed robbery for the same act but the conviction was reversed in State v. Killmon, 239 Or. 560, 398 P.2d 743 (1965).

Page 467

jdjungle