Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ANTHONY G. FRANSKE, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1988-08-03
Citations: 92 Or. App. 353
Docket Number: 86-11-35896, 87-02-31160; CA A44684; A44685
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ANTHONY G. FRANSKE, Appellant.
Judges: Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Graber, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 92
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 31,
affirmed August 3,
reconsideration denied September 23,
petition for review denied October 18,1988 (307 Or 77)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ANTHONY G. FRANSKE, Appellant.
(86-11-35896, 87-02-31160; CA A44684 (Control), A44685)
(Cases Consolidated)
758 P2d 418
Stephen 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.
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Graber, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER 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. He argues that the court erred in failing to state adequately its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required by ORS 137.122:
"(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the requirement of ORS 137.122(6) that a trial court state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences was impliedly repealed by ORS 137.123, the trial court did not err in failing to do so.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 P2d 1355 (1988).
Affirmed.
Defendant's other assignment of error has no merit and requires no discussion.
Enacted by Or Laws 1985, ch 722, § 2.