State v. PULCIPHER

209 P.3d 380, 228 Or. App. 738
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. PULCIPHER. Read the opinion of the Court — 227 Or. App. 9
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided May 27, 2009·No. C020754CR, C020987CR, C013620CR A118944 (Control) A120457, A120070·Published

Opinion

209 P.3d 380 (2009)
228 Or. App. 738

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Andrew Frederic PULCIPHER, Defendant-Appellant.

C020754CR, C020987CR, C013620CR; A118944 (Control) A120457, A120070.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

On Appellant's Petition for Reconsideration April 15, 2009.
Decided May 27, 2009.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Rebecca Duncan, Assistant Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.

Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and HASELTON, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Pulcipher, 227 Or.App. 9, 204 P.3d 852 (2009), on the basis that we erred in describing his sentence on Count 9 of the indictment as a "consecutive 12-month departure sentence." Id. at 11, 204 P.3d 852. In reviewing the record, we agree with defendant. The sentence imposed on Count 9 of the indictment was a consecutive 12-month sentence, not a "consecutive departure sentence." Our erroneous description of defendant's sentence on Count 9 had no effect on our analysis in the remainder of the opinion. Accordingly, we adhere to our opinion as modified to correct the description of defendant's sentence on Count 9.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

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

State v. PULCIPHER, 209 P.3d 380, 228 Or. App. 738 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

209 P.3d 380 (State v. PULCIPHER) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Pulcipher
204 P.3d 852 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)
State v. Pulcipher
209 P.3d 380 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)