State v. Calvin

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Warren Blaine CALVIN, Appellant.
• Citation: State v. Calvin, 244 Or. 402, 418 P.2d 821 (Or. 1966)
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 28 September 1966

Page 821

418 P.2d 821

244 Or. 402

STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v.Warren Blaine CALVIN, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 2.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 1966.

Decided Sept. 28, 1966.

James E. Dicey, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for appellant.With him on the brief were Hansen, Lekas & Dicey, Portland.

Jacob B. Tanzer, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, appeared for respondent.With him on the brief was George E. Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., Portland.

Before McALLISTER, C.J., and SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN and LUSK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was sentenced as a recidivist under Chapter ORS 168.In this appeal from the judgment entered he claimed that the court wrongfully considered a Federal violation of interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle.(Dyer Act).

In Landreth v. Gladden, 1958, 213 Or. 205, 324 P.2d 475, we held that a violation of the Dyer Act could not be included in an habitual criminal prosecution.Since then the legislature has amended the act by adding ORS 168.015(3) which specifically includes Federal violations with some exceptions that are not important here.The assignment is without merit.

One of the former convictions was a conviction for forgery in California.He claims that the full faith and credit provision of Article IV, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution requires that Oregon follow a California statute, (Section 644, California Penal Code) which does not include a conviction of forgery as an offense to be included in an habitual criminal charge.Whatever may be the rule in California it is an includable felony in Oregon.State v. Poierier, 1966, ...