Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LEE A. HEILLER, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1991-04-24
Citations: 106 Or. App. 770
Docket Number: 88CR-2508; CA A61025
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LEE A. HEILLER, Appellant.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 106
Pages: 770–771

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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.