Case ID: or-app_228/html/0231-01.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    reconsideration allowed; former opinion (222 Or App 313, 193 P3d 29 (2008)) withdrawn; affirmed April 29, 2009
    STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LAIRD WAYNE HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Marion County Circuit Court
    05C46732; A129989
    206 P3d 1218
    John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Appeals, for petition.
    Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

The state petitions for reconsideration of our decision in this case, State v. Hill, 222 Or App 313, 193 P3d 29 (2008) . In that decision, we determined that, under the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), the trial court had committed “an error of law apparent on the face of the record,” ORAP 5.45(1), in imposing consecutive sentences, and we exercised our discretion pursuant to Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382, 823 P2d 956 (1991), to correct that error. In light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009) , holding that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences, the trial court did not err.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed.