State v. Franske
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Per curiam
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)…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- DeAngelo v. SchiedlerOregon Supreme Court · 1988
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. RacicotCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- State v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
- State v. AguilarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
- State v. FranskeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- State v. DuranCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.