Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

758 P.2d 418

92 Or.App. 353

State v. Franske

STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Anthony G. FRANSKE, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 3, 1988

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 1988-08-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"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the requirement of ORS 137.122(6) that a trial court state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences was impliedly repealed by ORS 137.123, the trial court did not err in failing to do so." 92 Or. App. at 354 , 758 P.2d 418 (Citation omitted.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 106 Or. App. 557 - State v. Racicot

“(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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 106 Or. App. 557 - State v. Racicot

Applies OR 137 § 137.123

Relies on DeAngelo v. Schiedler · State v. Franske

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-08-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 2000

4 state decisions

20198819902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

86-11-35896; 87-02-31160; CA A44684 (Control); A44685.

¶1Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted March 31, 1988.
Decided August 3, 1988.
Reconsideration Denied September 23, 1988.

¶2Stephen J. Williams, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and Sally L. Avera, Deputy Public Defender, Salem.

¶3Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.

¶4*419 Before WARDEN, P.J., and VAN HOOMISSEN and GRABER, JJ.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6In 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."

¶7Because 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).

¶8Affirmed.

NOTES

¶9[1] Defendant's other assignment of error has no merit and requires no discussion.

¶10[2] Enacted by Or. Laws 1985, ch. 722, § 2.

/758/p2d/418 · .json · Public domain