Case ID: or-app_228/html/0528-01.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 respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed March 19,
    reconsideration allowed; former opinion (223 Or App 261, 196 P3d 538 (2008)) modified and adhered to as modified; former disposition withdrawn; affirmed May 20, 2009
    STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICHARD CARL BIGHOUSE, aka Richard Earl Bighouse, Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Washington County Circuit Court
    C033240CR, C040163CR, C041507CR;
    A126980 (Control), A126981, A126982
    209 P3d 356
    John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, for petition.
    Before Brewer, Chief Judge, and Edmonds, Landau, Haselton, Armstrong, Wollheim, Schuman, Ortega, Rosenblum, and Sercombe, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

The state seeks reconsideration of our decision in State v. Bighouse, 223 Or App 261, 196 P3d 538 (2008). In Bighouse, we affirmed defendant’s convictions but remanded for resentencing. The state now contends that, in light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), we erred in concluding that the imposition of consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5) requires findings by a jury rather than a judge. We agree and, accordingly, modify our opinion and affirm.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; former disposition withdrawn; affirmed.