Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ANTHONY G. FRANSKE, Appellant.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in imposing a five-year sentence for his conviction for robbery in the third degree consecutive to his 20-year sentence for robbery in the first degree. He argues that the court erred in failing to state adequately its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required by ORS 137.122:

"(6) Whenever the court imposes a consecutive sentence under this section, it shall state its reasons for doing so and make all required special findings on the record at the time of sentencing."

Defendant's other assignment of error has no merit and requires no discussion.

Enacted by Or Laws 1985, ch 722, § 2.

Because the requirement of ORS 137.122 (6) that a trial court state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences was impliedly repealed by ORS 137.123, the trial court did not err in failing to do so. DeAngelo v. Schiedler, 306 Or. 91, 100 n 5, 757 P.2d 1355 (1988).

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. FRANSKE
(Oct 18, 1988)