State v. Johnson
This text of 849 P.2d 1160 (State v. Johnson) 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, Respondent,
v.
Dwayne JOHNSON, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Timothy A. Sylwester, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, for motion.
Before RICHARDSON, C.J., and DEITS and DURHAM, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The state moves for reconsideration of our opinion, State v. Johnson (A71401), 117 Or.App. 531, 842 P.2d 819 (1992), and contends that we incorrectly stated its concession. We said that the state had conceded that the trial court erred "in imposing an indeterminate sentence under the dangerous offender statute." As the state points out, it conceded only that the 15-year minimum determinate term was erroneous, because it exceeded the presumptive sentence prescribed by ORS 161.737(2).
We allow the motion for reconsideration to correct the statement of the state's concession. However, the case must be remanded for resentencing under State v. Davis, 315 Or. 484, 847 P.2d 834 (1993).
Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
849 P.2d 1160, 119 Or. App. 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-orctapp-1993.