Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES LANE SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2010-04-28
Citations: 235 Or. App. 177
Docket Number: 07P3334; A138325
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES LANE SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Deits, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 235
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed March 17, and on appellant’s response to state’s petition for reconsideration filed March 23,
reconsideration allowed; former opinion (234 Or App 38, 227 P3d 1186) modified and adhered to as modified April 28, 2010
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES LANE SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Polk County Circuit Court
07P3334; A138325
230 P3d 100
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, for petition.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Eric Johansen, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for response.
Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Deits, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state petitions for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Sullivan, 234 Or App 38, 227 P3d 1186 (2010), asserting that the court made a factual error that led to an erroneous remand for resentencing.
On reconsideration, we agree with the state that the opinion contains a typographical error, and accordingly, make one modification to the recitation of facts in the opinion. We stated, "The judgment that the court entered did not merge the second-degree assault conviction into the first-degree assault conviction, but rather imposed consecutive sentences on those convictions." Id. at 41. We withdraw that sentence and replace it with the following: "The judgment that the court entered did not merge the second-degree assault conviction into the first-degree assault conviction, but rather imposed concurrent sentences on those convictions."
Contrary to the state's argument, that typographical error did not affect our disposition. ORS 138.222(5). We reject without discussion the state's remaining arguments on reconsideration.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.