Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CONNIE LOU LUNSKI, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1990-05-02
Citations: 101 Or. App. 495
Docket Number: CR 88-648, CR 88-907; CA A61260, A61261
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CONNIE LOU LUNSKI, Appellant.
Judges: Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 101
Pages: 495–496

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 27,
affirmed May 2, 1990
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. CONNIE LOU LUNSKI, Appellant.
(CR 88-648, CR 88-907; CA A61260 (Control), A61261)
(Cases Consolidated)
791 P2d 146
Henry M. Silberblatt, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Acting Public Defender, Salem.
Wendy J. Paris, 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 Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a conviction for contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor. ORS 163.435. She argues that the trial court erred by failing to specify in its sentence the amount of restitution that she would be required to pay as a condition of her probation. She concedes that she did not make an objection in the trial court, pursuant to ORS 137.106(3). Her failure to object was a waiver of her rights under that statute. See State v. Carpenter, 101 Or App 489, 791 P2d 145 (1990).
We do not address defendant's other assignment of error, because it lacks merit.
Affirmed.