State v. Reinke, (CC 090130185
| Decision Date | 12 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | CA A144138,(CC 090130185,SC S059760). |
| Citation | 354 Or. 570,316 P.3d 286 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Leonard Lloyd REINKE, Petitioner on Review. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREOn petitioner on review's petition for reconsideration filed October 7, 2013; considered and under advisement on November 19, 2013.*
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Deputy Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, Salem, filed the petition for reconsideration. With him on the petition was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender.
No appearance contra.
Before BALMER, Chief Justice, and KISTLER, WALTERS, LINDER, and LANDAU, Justices.**
Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Reinke, 354 Or. 98, 309 P.3d 1059 (2013), which affirmed the Court of Appeals decision and the trial court's judgment. As defendant correctly notes, the Court of Appeals decision affirmed the trial court's judgment in every respect except one. The Court of Appeals “reversed and remanded [the trial court's judgment] for resentencing” because count 15 of the indictment did not include a determinate and indeterminate term of incarceration, but “otherwise affirmed” the judgment. State v. Reinke, 245 Or.App. 33, 34, 260 P.3d 820 (2011). The state had conceded in the Court of Appeals that the trial court had erred in not including a determinate and indeterminate term of incarceration on count 15, and it did not challenge that aspect of the Court of Appeals decision on review. We accordingly allow the petition for reconsideration and modify our disposition of this case as follows: The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is adhered to as modified.
* Appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court, Richard C. Baldwin, Judge. 245 Or.App. 33, 260 P.3d 820 (2011).
**Brewer and Baldwin, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Keys
...have not treated them as dispositive. See State v. Reinke , 354 Or. 98, 109-10, 309 P.3d 1059, adh'd to as modified on recons , 354 Or. 570, 316 P.3d 286 (2013) (explaining that this court's prior interpretation of the word "crime" in Article VII (Amended), section 5 (1929), "forms the back......
-
State v. Haji
...arguments. The state initially contends that, in State v. Reinke , 354 Or. 98, 309 P.3d 1059, adh'd to as modified on recons , 354 Or. 570, 316 P.3d 286 (2013), this court already definitively construed Article VII (Amended), section 5, and that Reinke resolves the case in its favor by prec......
-
Horton v. Or. Health & Sci. Univ., Corp.
...I, section 10, its history, and our cases. See State v. Reinke, 354 Or. 98, 105, 309 P.3d 1059, adh'd to as modified on recons., 354 Or. 570, 316 P.3d 286 (2013) (undertaking similar reexamination). In doing so, we focus initially (and solely) on Smothers' holding that Oregon common law in ......
-
State v. Worth
...arguments fail on their merits under State v. Reinke,354 Or. 98, 104, 309 P.3d 1059, adh'd to as modified on recons.,354 Or. 570, 316 P.3d 286 (2013)(upholding State v. Wagner,305 Or. 115, 752 P.2d 1136 (1988), and related decisions, reasoning that, “as a matter of state constitutional law,......