State v. Pavlinac

877 P.2d 1204, 128 Or. App. 296, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 769
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Pavlinac. Read the opinion of the Court — 126 Or. App. 635
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided May 25, 1994·No. 900231273; CA A69413·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to ORAP 6.25(l)(b), we allow the state’s motion for reconsideration of the disposition of this case in which we remanded for resentencing with instructions to delete the sentence of life imprisonment and to impose a judgment for post-prison supervision for the remainder of defendant’s life. 126 Or App 635, 870 P2d 235 (1994). We agree that defendant need not be present for resentencing and the case should be remanded for entry of a corrected judgment deleting the life sentence and imposing post-prison supervision for the remainder of defendant’s life under OAR 235-05-004. State v. Bivens, 127 Or App 83, 871 P2d 486 (1994). Defendant’s 10-year minimum term is lawful.

Reconsideration allowed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment.

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

State v. Pavlinac, 877 P.2d 1204, 128 Or. App. 296, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 769 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

877 P.2d 1204 (State v. Pavlinac) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Bivens
871 P.2d 486 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1994)
State v. Pavlinac
870 P.2d 235 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1994)