Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Respondent, v. DAVID CHARLIE WICK, JR., Defendant-Respondent, Cross-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-06-10
Citations: 229 Or. App. 86
Docket Number: 040532848; A129555
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Respondent, v. DAVID CHARLIE WICK, JR., Defendant-Respondent, Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 229
Pages: 86–87

Head Matter:
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed March 19,
reconsideration allowed; former opinion (216 Or App 404,173 P3d 1231 (2007)) modified and adhered to as modified June 10, 2009
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Respondent, v. DAVID CHARLIE WICK, JR., Defendant-Respondent, Cross-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
040532848; A129555
209 P3d 857
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 Wollheim, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state petitions this court to reconsider its decision in State v. Wick, 216 Or App 404, 173 P3d 1231 (2007), rev den, 344 Or 671 (2008). In Wick, we remanded for resentencing on the state's appeal but affirmed defendant's convictions on cross-appeal. On the state's appeal, we concluded that the sentencing court correctly declined to impose consecutive sentences based on its own judicial factfinding, but we remanded so that the court could afford defendant the option of a jury trial on consecutive sentencing factors under Oregon Laws 2005, chapter 463. 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 in that respect.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.