Case ID: or-app_228/html/0361-01.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 February 23,
    reconsideration allowed; former opinion (219 Or App 225, 182 P3d 889 (2008)) withdrawn; affirmed May 13,
    petition for review denied September 17, 2009 (347 Or 43)
    STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIC CHRISTOPHER MILLS, aka Erick Christopher Mills, Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Multnomah County Circuit Court
    040431756; A127453
    208 P3d 980
    John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Appeals, for petition.
    Before Brewer, Chief Judge, and Landau, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

The state petitions for reconsideration. In State v. Mills, 219 Or App 225, 182 P3d 889 (2008), we granted defendant’s petition for reconsideration, vacated our prior decision, State v. Mills, 215 Or App 112, 168 P3d 338 (2007), and remanded for resentencing in light of State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007). Ice, however, subsequently was reversed. Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009). The state now argues that, in light of Ice, our remand for resentencing was erroneous. The state is correct that the case is controlled by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ice. Accordingly, on reconsideration, we withdraw our former opinion and affirm.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed.