State v. Lunski

791 P.2d 146, 101 Or. App. 495
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMay 2, 1990
DocketCR 88-648, CR 88-907; CA A61260, A61261
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 791 P.2d 146 (State v. Lunski) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Lunski, 791 P.2d 146, 101 Or. App. 495 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a conviction for contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor. ORS 163.435. She argues that the trial court erred by failing to specify in its sentence the amount of restitution that she would be required to pay as a condition of her probation. She concedes that she did not make an objection in the trial court, pursuant to ORS 137.106(3). Her failure to object was a waiver of her rights under that statute. See State v. Carpenter, 101 Or App 489, 791 P2d 145 (1990).

We do not address defendant’s other assignment of error, because it lacks merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Gruver
268 P.3d 760 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
791 P.2d 146, 101 Or. App. 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lunski-orctapp-1990.