Case ID: or-app_226/html/0462-01.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 January 28,
    reconsideration allowed; former opinions (221 Or App 433, 190 P3d 437; 224 Or App 493, 199 P3d 343 (2008)) vacated; affirmed March 11, 2009
    STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN DWIGHT WESTBROOK, Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Lane County Circuit Court
    2004-23125, 2004-23277, 2005-05744, 2004-23624, 2005-05745, 2005-07054; A128352 (Control), A128353, A128354, A129155, A129156, A129157
    204 P3d 116
    Jonathan H. Fussner, Attorney-In-Charge, Criminal Appeals, for petition.
    Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   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.