Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN DWIGHT WESTBROOK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-03-11
Citations: 226 Or. App. 462
Docket Number: 2004-23125, 2004-23277, 2005-05744, 2004-23624, 2005-05745, 2005-07054; A128352, A128353, A128354, A129155, A129156, A129157
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN DWIGHT WESTBROOK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 226
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed January 28,
reconsideration allowed; former opinions (221 Or App 433, 190 P3d 437; 224 Or App 493, 199 P3d 343 (2008)) vacated; affirmed March 11, 2009
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN DWIGHT WESTBROOK, Defendant-Appellant.
Lane County Circuit Court
2004-23125, 2004-23277, 2005-05744, 2004-23624, 2005-05745, 2005-07054; A128352 (Control), A128353, A128354, A129155, A129156, A129157
204 P3d 116
Jonathan H. Fussner, Attorney-In-Charge, Criminal Appeals, for petition.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state petitions for reconsideration, arguing that, in light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), we should vacate our prior opinion in State v. Westbrook, 221 Or App 433, 190 P3d 437, vac'd and rent'd on recons, 224 Or App 493, 199 P3d 343 (2008). We agree that Oregon v. Ice is dispositive and that, consequently, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we vacate both of our former opinions, each of which was predicated on the premise that State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), was controlling.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinions vacated; affirmed.