State v. Demeritt

325 Or. App. 245
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided April 12, 2023·No. A176733·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed February 17; reconsideration allowed, former disposition (324 Or App 183 (nonprecedential memorandum opinion)) withdrawn, portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $7,500.00 in restitution vacated, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed April 12, 2023

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JODY ROBERT DEMERITT, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 20CR25282; A176733

William A. Marshall, Judge. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, for petition. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $7,500.00 in restitution vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 246 State v. Demeritt

ORTEGA, P. J. The state petitions for reconsideration of our deci- sion in State v. Demeritt, 324 Or App 183 (2023) (nonpreceden- tial memorandum opinion), in which we accepted the state’s concession of error regarding a restitution award in light of State v. Shockey, 285 Or App 718, 398 P3d 444, adh’d to on recons, 287 Or App 236, 399 P3d 491 (2017). In its peti- tion, the state argues that our prior disposition failed to con- sider that an amendment to the statute relating to fines for wildlife violations called for a different disposition than the disposition from our opinion on reconsideration in Shockey. Although the state first brought that argument about the amendment to the court’s attention in its petition for recon- sideration, we nonetheless modify our disposition to allow for the parties to argue on remand for the appropriate result on resentencing. Reconsideration allowed; former disposition with- drawn; portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $7,500.00 in restitution vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

State v. Demeritt, 325 Or. App. 245 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

325 Or. App. 245 (State v. Demeritt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Demeritt
324 Or. App. 183 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2023)