State v. Wilson, 920834764.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 208 P.3d 523,228 Or. App. 365 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gregory Paul WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | A121457.,920834764. |
| Decision Date | 13 May 2009 |
v.
Gregory Paul WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court; Kimberly C. Frankel, Judge. (Judgment), Michael J. McShane, Judge. (Amended Judgment).
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge,
Criminal Appeals, for petition. On the reply were Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Richard L. Wolf, Portland, for response.
Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG, Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The state petitions, based on Oregon v. Ice, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009), for reconsideration of our decision in this case. State v. Wilson, 216 Or.App. 226, 173 P.3d 150 (2007). For the reasons that follow, we allow reconsideration, withdraw our former disposition, modify our former opinion in part and adhere to it as modified, and affirm.
In Wilson, defendant raised a variety of challenges to his convictions and sentences, and we rejected all of those challenges, except for defendant's contention, based on State v. Ice, 343 Or. 248, 170 P.3d 1049 (2007), that the trial court had erred in imposing a consecutive sentence based on judicial findings. Wilson, 216 Or.App. at 228-37, 173 P.3d 150. Accordingly, we affirmed defendant's convictions and remanded for resentencing. Id.
We agree with the state that, in light of Oregon v. Ice, the trial court did not err in imposing the disputed consecutive sentence. Consequently, we: (1) modify our former opinion to delete those portions that state that State v. Ice is controlling and requires a remand for resentencing, see Wilson, 216 Or.App. at 228, 237, 173 P.3d 150; (2) adhere to our former opinion as so modified; (3) withdraw our prior disposition in light of Oregon v. Ice; and (4) affirm.1
Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; affirmed.
---------------
Notes:
1. We agree with the state that, notwithstanding defendant's service of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Cain, A163992
...v. Wilson , 216 Or. App. 226, 236-37, 173 P.3d 150, rev. den. , 334 Or. 391, 181 P.3d 770 (2008), adh'd to as modified on recons. , 228 Or. App. 365, 208 P.3d 523 (2009) (same).1 Moreover, Barrett aside, petitioner's completed293 Or.App. 436robbery conviction could not merge with his attemp......
-
State v. Galloway, A159696
...v. Wilson , 216 Or. App. 226, 234, 173 P.3d 150 (2007), rev. den. , 344 Or. 391, 181 P.3d 770 (2008), adh’d to as modified on recons. , 228 Or. App. 365, 208 P.3d 523 (2009) ( Wilson III ). The "defendant was found guilty of five counts of the lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated......
-
Koller v. Schmaing, 050100598
...State v. Wilson, 216 Or.App. 226, 232, 173 P.3d 150 (2007), rev. den.,344 Or. 391, 181 P.3d 770 (2008), adh'd to as modified on recons.,228 Or.App. 365, 208 P.3d 523 (2009) (“[T]he Oregon Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished that the concept of ‘structural error’ is inapposite to Oregon ......
-
Koller v. Schmaing, A136633 (Control)
...State v. Wilson, 216 Or App 226, 232, 173 P3d 150 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 391 (2008), adh'd to as modified on recons, 228 Or App 365, 208 P3d 523 (2009) ("[T]he Oregon Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished that the concept of 'structural error' is inapposite to Oregon law."); see also Hay......