State v. Bighouse
This text of 209 P.3d 356 (State v. Bighouse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The state seeks reconsideration of our decision in State v. Bighouse, 223 Or App 261, 196 P3d 538 (2008). In Bighouse, we affirmed defendant’s convictions but remanded for resentencing. The state now contends that, in light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), we erred in concluding that the imposition of consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5) requires findings by a jury rather than a judge. We agree and, accordingly, modify our opinion and affirm.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; former disposition withdrawn; affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
209 P.3d 356, 228 Or. App. 528, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bighouse-orctapp-2009.