State v. Martinez
This text of 812 P.2d 30 (State v. Martinez) 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
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 However, because ORS 137.123 impliedly repealed ORS 137.122, we reject defendant’s argument.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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
812 P.2d 30, 107 Or. App. 439, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martinez-orctapp-1991.