Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009

State v. BIGHOUSE

State v. BIGHOUSE
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided May 20, 2009 · Brewer, Chief Judge, and Edmonds, Landau, Haselton, Armstrong, Wollheim, Schuman, Ortega, Rosenblum, and Sercombe, Judges
209 P.3d 356; 228 Or. App. 528 (Pacific Reporter, Third Series)

State v. BIGHOUSE

Opinion

209 P.3d 356 (2009)
228 Or. App. 528

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Richard Carl BIGHOUSE, aka Richard Earl Bighouse, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. C033240CR, C040163CR, C041507CR, A126980 (Control), A126981, A126982.

Court of Appeals of Oregon, En Banc.

On Respondent's Petition for Reconsideration March 19, 2009.
Decided May 20, 2009.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, for petition.

Before BREWER, Chief Judge, and EDMONDS, LANDAU, HASELTON, ARMSTRONG, WOLLHEIM, SCHUMAN, ORTEGA, ROSENBLUM, and SERCOMBE, Judges.

*357 PER CURIAM.

The state seeks reconsideration of our decision in State v. Bighouse, 223 Or.App. 261, 196 P.3d 538 (2008). In Bighouse, we affirmed defendant's convictions but remanded for resentencing. The state now contends that, in light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. ___, 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 and affirm.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; former disposition withdrawn; affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑