Lovelace v. Zenon

*160DE MUNIZ, P. J.

In this post-conviction relief case, we write only to address petitioner’s claim1 that his trial counsel2 was constitutionally inadequate because counsel failed to object to petitioner’s sentence under the Dangerous Offender Act (Act), ORS 161.725, on the ground that petitioner was entitled to a jury determination of whether the criminal act “seriously endangered the life or safety of another.” ORS 161.725(l)(b).

The material facts are undisputed. In 1987, a jury convicted petitioner for assault in the second degree, which is a Class B felony. ORS 163.175. At sentencing, the…