Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TUAN ANH NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-04-29
Citations: 228 Or. App. 241
Docket Number: 040532737; A127563
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TUAN ANH NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 228
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed March 19,
reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion (221 Or App 440, 190 P3d 462 (2008)) modified and adhered to as modified; affirmed April 29, 2009
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TUAN ANH NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
040532737; A127563
206 P3d 1219
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, for petition.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Based on Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), the state petitions for reconsideration of our decision in this case. State v. Nguyen, 221 Or App 440, 190 P3d 462 (2008). For the reasons that follow, we allow reconsideration, modify our prior opinion and adhere to it as modified, withdraw our prior disposition, and affirm.
In our prior opinion in this case, we affirmed defendant's convictions for robbery, kidnapping, and burglary, but, based on State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), we reversed the consecutive sentence that the trial court had imposed and remanded for resentencing. Since then, the United States Supreme Court has reversed the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in State v. Ice. See Oregon v. Ice, 555 US at_, 172 L Ed 2d at 525 (holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences). In light of Oregon v. Ice, we conclude that the trial court did not err in imposing a consecutive sentence in this case. We therefore (1) modify our prior opinion to delete those portions that state that State v. Ice is controlling and require a remand for resentencing, see 221 Or App at 447-48; (2) adhere to our prior opinion as modified; (3) withdraw our prior disposition; and (4) affirm.
Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; affirmed.