Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

STATE v. SMITH, 119 Or. App. 236 (1993)

STATE OF Or., Respondent, v. PATRICK HAROLD SMITH, Appellant., 849 P.2d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1993-04-14
Topic
general

STATE v. SMITH, 119 Or. App. 236 (1993) 849 P.2d 565 STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. PATRICK HAROLD SMITH, Appellant. 10-91-06331; CA A72758Oregon Court of Appeals. On appellant's petition for reconsideration filed March 10, 1993Reconsideration allowed; opinion (117 Or.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. SMITH, 119 Or. App. 236 (1993). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. SMITH,119 Or. App. 236(1993)
849 P.2d 565
STATE OF OREGON,Respondent, v.PATRICK HAROLD SMITH,Appellant.
10-91-06331; CA A72758
Oregon Court of Appeals.
On appellant's petition for reconsideration filed March 10, 1993
Reconsideration allowed; opinion (117 Or. App. 545, 843 P.2d 1025) adhered
to April 14, 1993
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County.

Gregory Foote, Judge.
Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, for petition.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.Page 237
PER CURIAM
Defendant petitions for review of our decision,117 Or. App. 545,843 P.2d 1025(1992), contending that our decision to affirm the sentence is contrary to our holding inState v. Harding,116 Or. App. 29,840 P.2d 113(1992). We treat the petition as a petition for reconsideration. ORAP 9.15. We affirmed because defendant failed to preserve the error that he raises on appeal.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion adhered to.Page 238