Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1987-06-17
Citations: 86 Or. App. 5
Docket Number: C86-07-33189; CA A42098
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 86
Pages: 5–6

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted April 29,
sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing June 17, 1987
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ, Appellant.
(C86-07-33189; CA A42098)
737 P2d 976
J. Marvin Kuhn, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was Gary D. Babcock, 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 Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted after trial to the court on the crimes of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The court imposed separate sentences for each conviction and ordered that they be served consecutively. Defendant argues that the court erred in not stating reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, as required by ORS 137.122. The state concedes that the court erred, and we agree.
Defendant also contends that the sentences imposed were excessive. Because we remand for resentencing, that issue need not be decided.
Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing.