AFFIRMED.
LANGTRY, J.
This appeal is from a judgment for an enhanced penalty under ORS ch 168. Defendant was convicted of forgery in Multnomah County on February 1, 1965, and sentenced the same day. On that day the district attorney filed an information alleging three previous felony convictions and sought an enhanced penalty. The defendant appealed the conviction of forgery, and a written order was entered on February 15, 1965, holding the information of previous convictions in abeyance pending determination of the appeal. The conviction was affirmed by the Oregon Supreme Court on December 15, 1965. State v. Holbert, 242 Or. 228, 408 P.2d 941 (1965).
The mandate was entered on January 27, 1966. The hearing on the information was held on April 26, 1966. At the commencement of this hearing, defendant's attorney moved for dismissal and said:
"MR. HALEY: * * * [T]he information was filed better than a year ago. They have a duty to proceed forthwith.
"THE COURT: You mean they have a duty to proceed before the appeal is heard?
"MR. HALEY: No. They have a duty to proceed immediately following it, though."
Following further colloquy, the court read to counsel and defendant from State v. Custer, 240 Or. 350, 352, 401 P.2d 402 (1965).
"The suggestion that delayed imposition of an enhanced penalty is a denial of the right to a speedy trial, guaranteed * * * [by state and United States constitutions] is answered in
State vs. Hoffman, 236 Or. 98,
385 P.2d 741 (1963), where we pointed out that the determination of the status of a defendant as an habitual criminal is not a part of the trial of the principal offense. . . ."
In Custer, where no appeal intervened between conviction of the principal offense and the hearing on the enhanced penalty, a period of six months elapsed.
The trial court in the case at bar properly did not allow the motion to dismiss made on the basis of an alleged denial of a speedy trial. The only question here is whether the time from entry of the mandate, January 27, 1966, to April 26, 1966, a total of 89 days, was too long under the applicable statutes.
The enhanced penalty statutes, ORS 168.055 and 168.065, place limitations of time on such proceedings. The district attorney must observe these limitations. State v. Romero, 1 Or. App. 217, 461 P.2d 70 (1969). The district attorney did so in this proceeding. We agree with the trial court that there was no merit in the motion to dismiss.
Judgment affirmed.