City of Eugene v. 1979 280ZX, Datsun, Oregon License No. TCL 860

908 P.2d 849, 138 Or. App. 371, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 1772

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s property was forfeited in a proceeding that followed his criminal conviction. At the forfeiture proceeding, he claimed that the forfeiture was unconstitutional as an excessive fine/punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Austin v. United States, 509 US_, 113 S Ct 2801, 125 L Ed 2d 488 (1993). On appeal, he has abandoned that argument. Instead, he argues that the forfeiture proceeding violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy and relies on, inter alia, U.S. v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F3d 1210 (9th Cir 1994). Appellant did not make that argument to the trial court, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.