State v. Westbrook

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Westbrook

204 P.3d 116, 226 Or. App. 462, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 142

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided March 11, 2009·No. 2004-23125, 2004-23277, 2005-05744, 2004-23624, 2005-05745, 2005-07054; A128352, A128353, A128354, A129155, A129156, A129157·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The state petitions for reconsideration, arguing that, in light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), we should vacate our prior opinion in State v. Westbrook, 221 Or App 433, 190 P3d 437, vac’d and rent’d on recons, 224 Or App 493, 199 P3d 343 (2008). We agree that Oregon v. Ice is dispositive and that, consequently, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we vacate both of our former opinions, each of which was predicated on the premise that State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), was controlling.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinions vacated; affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

The state petitions for reconsideration, arguing that, in light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), we should vacate our prior opinion in State v. Westbrook, 221 Or App 433, 190 P3d 437, vac’d and rent’d on recons, 224 Or App 493, 199 P3d 343 (2008). We agree that Oregon v. Ice is dispositive and that, consequently, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we vacate both of our former opinions, each of which was predicated on the premise that State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), was controlling.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinions vacated; affirmed.

State v. Westbrook, 204 P.3d 116, 226 Or. App. 462, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 142 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

204 P.3d 116 (State v. Westbrook) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related