specially concurring.
The record is clear that the trial judge, when she was considering the disposition of defendant’s case, would not have placed him on probation without imposing the conditions that he post signs on his residence and on any vehicle that he was operating stating that he is a “Dangerous Sex Offender.” If we were to reverse either the original judgment or the order revoking probation on defendant’s appeal, State v. Turner, 247 Or 301, 429 P2d 565 (1967), would require that the *467trial court, on remand, treat defendant no more harshly for having succeeded on his appeal than it treated him in the judgment from which he appealed. That would mean that the trial judge would be required to continue defendant on probation, which she would not have allowed initially without the two objectionable conditions. That result does not seem appropriate.
Given the Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Carmickle, 307 Or 1, 762 P2d 290 (1988), that a convicted defendant has the absolute right to reject probation for any reason, it would follow that a defendant who does not reject probation, but accepts it with whatever conditions the court has imposed, has waived any objection to the conditions. The result of Carmickle is that a defendant’s sole remedy is to reject probation.
The court in Carmickle stated that the legislature must have intended to permit a convicted defendant to reject probation, because it has authorized the trial court to impose special conditions of probation, some of which may require a defendant to give some of his constitutional rights. If that is what the legislature intended, that result would be consistent with the majority’s conclusion that an order revoking probation, for whatever reason, is not within the scope of our review under ORS 138.050. There would be no need to review the validity of the conditions, because the defendant may reject them.
Accordingly, I agree that we must affirm.