Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HUNG NGOC TRUONG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2014-11-19
Citations: 267 Or. App. 121
Docket Number: 110532061; A150936
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HUNG NGOC TRUONG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and De Muniz, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 267
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed October 15, on respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed October 15,
reconsideration allowed; former disposition (265 Or App 730, 337 P3d 845) withdrawn; reversed and remanded on Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8; otherwise affirmed November 19, 2014
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HUNG NGOC TRUONG, Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
110532061; A150936
267 P3d 121
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for appellant’s petition.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Erin K. Galli, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent’s petition.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and De Muniz, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state and defendant petition for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Truong, 265 Or App 730, 337 P3d 845 (2014), contending that our disposition was erroneous. We grant reconsideration, and, for the reasons stated below, withdraw our former disposition and substitute a new one.
The judgment that defendant appealed reflected (1) convictions on Counts 2, 6, 7, and 8; (2) the merger of the guilty verdict on Count 3 with Count 2, and (3) defendant's acquittal on Counts 1, 4, and 5. On appeal, we concluded that the court committed an evidentiary error that was not harmless. Our disposition stated, "Reversed and remanded on Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed."
On reconsideration, both parties contend that our disposition was erroneous because, having reversed and remanded on the five identified counts, there was no reason "to conduct a new sentencing hearing unless defendant is found guilty following a new trial." We agree. Accordingly, the parties are correct that we should not have remanded the case for resentencing.
Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; reversed and remanded on Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8; otherwise affirmed.