Case ID: or-app_106/html/0770-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted September 28, 1990,
    convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing April 24, 1991
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LEE A. HEILLER, Appellant.
    
    (88CR-2508; CA A61025)
    809 P2d 730
    Loren W. Collins, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    Anne Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant challenges the consecutive sentences imposed after his conviction on five counts. Defendant’s remaining assignments of error either were not preserved or are without merit. He argues that the trial court failed to find that the circumstance came within ORS 137.123(4)(a) or (b). We agree. The only reason given by the trial court for the consecutive sentences is that, but for the mistakes and “timidness” of some of the witnesses, defendant would have been convicted of more than what was presented to the court. That statement does not show that the requirements of ORS 137.123(4) were met. See State v. Racicot, 106 Or App 557, 809 P2d 726 (1991).

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.