State v. Karp

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Karp

209 P.3d 858, 229 Or. App. 88, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 751

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided June 10, 2009·No. C050534CR; A130751·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The state petitions this court to reconsider its decision in State v. Karp, 220 Or App 299, 185 P3d 553 (2008). In Karp, 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Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

The state petitions this court to reconsider its decision in State v. Karp, 220 Or App 299, 185 P3d 553 (2008). In Karp, 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Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; affirmed.

State v. Karp, 209 P.3d 858, 229 Or. App. 88, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 751 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

209 P.3d 858 (State v. Karp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related