State v. Hartman
This text of 248 P.3d 448 (State v. Hartman) 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
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Jacob Alan HARTMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, for petition.
Before WOLLHEIM, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The state petitions for reconsideration of our decision in this case, State v. Hartman, 238 Or.App. 582, 243 P.3d 480 (2010), arguing that this court erred in its disposition of the case. In our original opinion, we reversed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence, and, consequently, we reversed and remanded the case. The state points out that the evidence at issue in defendant's motion concerned only two of the seven counts of which defendant was convicted and, thus, our disposition properly should have been to affirm defendant's convictions on the counts not affected by our reversal of the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. The state's point is well taken.
Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; convictions on Counts 2 and *449 3 reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
248 P.3d 448, 241 Or. App. 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hartman-orctapp-2011.