State v. Vandepoll

*195ROSSMAN, P. J.

Defendant appeals his convictions on two counts of driving while revoked and two counts of driving while a habitual traffic offender. ORS 811.182(1); former ORS 811.185(1).1 He contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that his license had been revoked because the notice that the Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) had sent him about the revocation hearing was defective. We affirm.

On March 7, 1988, MVD sent defendant a notice informing him that his driving privileges would be revoked because he was a habitual traffic offender. The notice read, in part:

“You have the…