PER CURIAM.
Defendant, after a plea of guilty to the charge of obtaining money by false pretenses, was later given an enhanced sentence as required by the Habitual Criminal Code, ORS 168.015 et seq. On this appeal from the sentence, defendant again challenges the unconstitutionality of the alleged discriminatory use of the statute by the prosecutor, and because the statutes do not permit trial by jury, that they are, in effect, ex post facto, that it does not require grand jury proceedings and for other reasons.
Substantially every issue presented by defendant has been decided by this court, adversely to defendant's contention. Howell v. Gladden, 1967, 247 Or. 138, 427 P.2d 978; Haynes v. Gladden (1967), 245 Or. 487, 422 P.2d 679; State v. Poierier (1966) 242 Or. 384, 409 P.2d 680; State v. Byrd (1965) 240 Or. 159, 400 P.2d 522, cert denied 382 U.S. 865; State v. Custer (1965) 240 Or. 350, 401 P.2d 402; State v. Howell (1965) 240 Or. 558, 402 P.2d 89; State v. Ellis (1964) 238 Or. 104, 392 P.2d 647. There is no justification for reconsidering any of them. The judgment is affirmed.