Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICHARD RAMOS MEJIA, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1980-09-15
Citations: 48 Or. App. 230
Docket Number: No. J79-2974, CA 17243
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICHARD RAMOS MEJIA, Appellant.
Judges: Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Campbell, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 48
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted August 25,
remanded for resentencing September 15,
appellant’s reconsideration denied October 23,
respondent’s reconsideration allowed, former opinion modified (48 Or App 961, 630 P2d 867) October 27,
appellant’s petition for review denied November 10, 1980 (290 Or 149)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICHARD RAMOS MEJIA, Appellant.
(No. J79-2974, CA 17243)
616 P2d 497
Marianne Bottini, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Margaret Frank, Certified Law Student, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were James M. Brown, Attorney General, John R. McCulloch, Jr., Solicitor General, and William F. Gary, Deputy Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Campbell, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree and Robbery in the Second Degree. There was sufficient evidence. See State v. Krummacher, 269 Or 125, 523 P2d 1009 (1974).
The state does acknowledge, however, that "[i]n light of State v. Perkins, 45 Or App 91, 607 P2d 1202 (1980), decided one day prior to the entry of defendant's judgments of conviction [in the present case], the defendant participated in only one robbery."
Remanded for resentencing.