State v. Clements

171 P.3d 988, 216 Or. App. 179, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1618

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: November 7, 2007
• Docket: 010849481; A126974
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a conviction for misdemeanor driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). ORS 813.010. He assigns error to the trial court’s order permanently revoking his driving privileges pursuant to ORS 809.235(l)(b), which requires a court to order the permanent revocation of a person’s driving privileges upon the person’s third or subsequent conviction for misdemeanor DUII. 1 He argues that, because his first two DUII convictions occurred before the effective date of ORS 809.235(l)(b), revoking his driving privileges on the basis of those convictions violates the ex post facto provisions of the Oregon and United States constitutions. Or Const, Art I, § 21; US Const, Art I, § 10. We held in State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 211 Or App 115, 153 P3d 168 (2007), that permanent revocation of driving privileges pursuant to ORS 809.235(l)(b) based on misdemeanor DUII offenses that predate the enactment of the statute does not violate the ex post facto provisions of either constitution. Hence, defendant’s objection to the trial court’s revocation order is not well taken.

Affirmed.

1 At the time of defendant’s conviction, ORS 809.235(l)(b) required permanent revocation for a third misdemeanor DUII conviction. The legislature subsequently amended the provision to require permanent revocation for a third or subsequent conviction. That change has no bearing on this case.