State v. Martinez

812 P.2d 30, 107 Or. App. 439, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 848
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Martinez. Read the opinion of the Court — 97 Or. App. 170
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided May 29, 1991·No. 89C-21518; CA A63724·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant petitions for review of our decision that affirmed, without opinion, his convictions on three counts of assault in the second degree, ORS 163.175, and carrying a dangerous weapon with intent to use it unlawfully. ORS 166.220.105 Or App 414, 804 P2d 1231 (1991). We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15(1), allow it in the light of State v. Racicot, 106 Or App 557, 809 P2d 726 (1991), and adhere to our decision.

Defendant challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences on the ground that the trial court did not make the findings required by ORS 137.122. In Racicot, we held that, before a trial court can impose consecutive sentences, ORS 137.123(4)1 requires it to make certain findings. ORS 137.122 required similar findings. However, because ORS 137.123 impliedly repealed ORS 137.122, we reject defendant’s argument. See State v. Franske, 92 Or App 353, 758 P2d 418, rev den 307 Or 77 (1988).

Defendant’s remaining arguments do not merit discussion.

Reconsideration allowed; decision adhered to.

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

State v. Martinez, 812 P.2d 30, 107 Or. App. 439, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 848 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

812 P.2d 30 (State v. Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Racicot
809 P.2d 726 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)
State v. Franske
758 P.2d 418 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)
State v. Franske
758 P.2d 418 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)