Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIC CHRISTOPHER MILLS, aka Erick Christopher Mills, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-05-13
Citations: 228 Or. App. 361
Docket Number: 040431756; A127453
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIC CHRISTOPHER MILLS, aka Erick Christopher Mills, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Brewer, Chief Judge, and Landau, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 228
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed February 23,
reconsideration allowed; former opinion (219 Or App 225, 182 P3d 889 (2008)) withdrawn; affirmed May 13,
petition for review denied September 17, 2009 (347 Or 43)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIC CHRISTOPHER MILLS, aka Erick Christopher Mills, Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
040431756; A127453
208 P3d 980
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Appeals, for petition.
Before Brewer, Chief Judge, and Landau, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state petitions for reconsideration. In State v. Mills, 219 Or App 225, 182 P3d 889 (2008), we granted defendant's petition for reconsideration, vacated our prior decision, State v. Mills, 215 Or App 112, 168 P3d 338 (2007), and remanded for resentencing in light of State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007). Ice, however, subsequently was reversed. Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009). The state now argues that, in light of Ice, our remand for resentencing was erroneous. The state is correct that the case is controlled by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ice. Accordingly, on reconsideration, we withdraw our former opinion and affirm.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed.