From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Miller

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 27, 2009
228 Or. App. 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 01CR0698; A126149.

May 27, 2009.

Appeal from the Josephine County Circuit Court. George A. Van Hoomissen, Senior Judge.

On respondent's petition for reconsideration filed March 19, 2009. Opinion filed January 30, 2008. 217 Or App 576, 176 P3d 425.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Appeals, for petition.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.


PER CURIAM

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; former disposition withdrawn; affirmed.


The state petitions for reconsideration of our decision in this case. In that decision, we concluded that, based on the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), rev'd and rem'd, 555 US ___, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences based on its own findings of fact was plain error. The state now argues that, in light of the United States Supreme Court's reversal of the Oregon court's decision, we should reconsider. We agree. Under the United States Supreme Court's decision, the imposition of consecutive sentences was not error.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; former disposition withdrawn; affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Miller

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 27, 2009
228 Or. App. 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)
Case details for

State v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STANLEY LEE MILLER…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 27, 2009

Citations

228 Or. App. 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)
209 P.3d 380

Citing Cases

State v. Cable

If a criminal defendant wants to waive their right to counsel, the trial court must be satisfied that the…