Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAMIEN JAY KARP, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-06-10
Citations: 229 Or. App. 88
Docket Number: C050534CR; A130751
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAMIEN JAY KARP, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 229
Pages: 88–89

Head Matter:
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed March 19,
reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion (220 Or App 299,185 P3d 553 (2008)) modified and adhered to as modified; affirmed June 10, 2009
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAMIEN JAY KARP, Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
C050534CR; A130751
209 P3d 858
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Appeals, for petition.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state petitions this court to reconsider its decision in State v. Karp, 220 Or App 299, 185 P3d 553 (2008). In Karp, we affirmed defendant's convictions but remanded for resentencing. The state now contends that, in light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), we erred in concluding that the imposition of consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5) requires findings by a jury rather than a judge. We agree and, accordingly, modify our opinion and affirm.
Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; affirmed.