Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ADAM V. BUCHALSKI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2014-10-08
Citations: 266 Or. App. 225
Docket Number: C112214CR; A152126
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ADAM V. BUCHALSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 266
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed July 16,
reconsideration allowed; former disposition (264 Or App 142, 331 P3d 1049) withdrawn; affirmed October 8, 2014,
petition for review denied February 5, 2015 (356 Or 689)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ADAM V. BUCHALSKI, Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
C112214CR; A152126
337 P3d 923
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Matthew J. Lysne, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for petition.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state petitions for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Buchalski, 264 Or App 142, 331 P3d 1049 (2014). In part, we reversed based on an error in the original judgment, which the state conceded, and remanded for the trial court to merge two guilty verdicts into a single conviction for felony violation of a stalking order. While the appeal was pending, however, the trial court corrected the error in an amended judgment through an interlineation, which reads: "It further appears that Count 4 merges with Count 3 for-sentencing *[.]" Defendant then filed an amended notice of appeal.
The petition is well-taken, because defendant's assignment of error regarding merger is moot. And, a remand is no longer necessary to correct the error in the original judgment. Accordingly, we now affirm the trial court's amended judgment.
Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; affirmed.