STATE v. PETERS, 177 Or. App. 701 (2001)

34 P.3d 178

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT DESHAUN PETERS, Appellant.

98-10-38881; A108628Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted May 14, 2001.
Filed: October 31, 2001

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Douglas G. Beckman, Judge.

Raymond S. Tindell argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Ann Kelley, Assistant Attorney General.

Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and DEITS, Chief Judge, and BREWER, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

Page 702

PER CURIAM

In this criminal case, defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for four counts of robbery in the second degree, ORS 164.405, and four counts of burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the convictions. He also challenges the lawfulness of his sentence. We affirm.

As to the first assignment, defendant failed to make a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial, and he does not argue on appeal that the matter is one of plain error. In any event, the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions. We reject the assignment without further discussion.

As to the second assignment, defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a dangerous offender sentence because, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Oregon’s dangerous offender statute is unconstitutional. That assignment, too, is unpreserved, and we decline to address it for the first time on appeal. State v. Crain, 177 Or. App. 627, 33 P.3d 1050
(2001).

Affirmed.

Page 703