State v. Franske
This text of 758 P.2d 418 (State v. Franske) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.1 He argues that the court erred in failing to state adequately its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required by ORS 137.122:2
“(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.”
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the requirement of ORS 137.122(6) that a trial court state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences was impliedly repealed by ORS 137.123, the trial court did not err in failing to do so.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 P2d 1355 (1988).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
758 P.2d 418, 92 Or. App. 353, 1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 1289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-franske-orctapp-1988.