Case ID: or-app_232/html/0266-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed October 6,
    reconsideration allowed; former opinion (230 Or App 619, 216 P3d 915) modified and adhered to as modified November 25, 2009
    STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RUSSELL PATRICK BORCK, Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Yamhill County Circuit Court
    CR050689; A134423
    221 P3d 749
    Jason E. Thompson and Ferder Casebeer French & Thompson, LLP, for petition.
    Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion affirming his convictions on various crimes. State v. Borck, 230 Or App 619, 216 P3d 915 (2009). Although we reject without discussion defendant’s substantive contentions in support of his petition, we allow reconsideration for the limited purpose of modifying and correcting one aspect of our quotation of the trial court’s operative ruling, as set out at 230 Or App at 629. Specifically, in the fourth paragraph of our quotation of the trial court’s ruling, which begins “[The letters] do show * * the two references to “[M]” in that paragraph should, instead, read “[J].”

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