State v. Anderson

333 P.3d 1250, 265 Or. App. 222, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1169
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided August 27, 2014·No. C112615CR; A152628·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration in this case because, notwithstanding that the disposition of our opinion said that we had affirmed defendant’s convictions except to the extent that we had otherwise reversed and remanded them, our opinion did not expressly state that we had considered two of her three assignments of error on their merits. We did consider and reject those assignments on their merits. We modify the last sentence in the opinion before the disposition to read: “Accordingly, we do not believe that remand on the issue of venue is appropriate in this case, and we reject defendant’s second and third assignments on their merits without further discussion.” We adhere to our opinion, as modified.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Anderson, 333 P.3d 1250, 265 Or. App. 222, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1169 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

333 P.3d 1250 (State v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. McCright
386 P.3d 141 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2016)
State v. Ferguson
367 P.3d 551 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2016)