Case ID: or-app_228/html/0233-01.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    reconsideration allowed; former opinion (219 Or App 655, 184 P3d 1163 (2008)) withdrawn; affirmed April 29,
    petition for review denied July 29, 2009 (346 Or 590)
    STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KENNETH ABRAHAM PALFENIER, Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Washington County Circuit Court
    C052447CR; A133430
    206 P3d 1179
    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. Palfenier, 219 Or App 655, 184 P3d 1163 (2008). In that decision, we accepted the state’s concession that, under the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences based on facts found by the court rather than by a jury. Since then, however, the United States Supreme Court has reversed the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision, 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. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision, we agree that the trial court did not err.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed.