Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

232 Or. App. 266

221 P.3d 749

State v. Borck

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Russell Patrick BORCK, Defendant-Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 25, 2009

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2009-11-25

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2018

4 state decisions

Relies on 230 Or. App. 619 - State v. Borck

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-11-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CR050689; A134423.

¶1Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided September 09, 2009.
On appellant's petition for reconsideration filed October 6, 2009.
Decided November 25, 2009.

¶2Jason E. Thompson, Salem and Ferder Casebeer French & Thompson, LLP, for petition.

¶3Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion affirming his convictions on various crimes. State v. Borck, 230 Or.App. 619, 216 P.3d 915 (2009). Although we reject without discussion defendant's substantive contentions in support of his petition, we allow reconsideration for the limited purpose of modifying and correcting one aspect of our quotation of the trial court's operative ruling, as set out at 230 Or.App. at 629, 216 P.3d 915. Specifically, in the fourth paragraph of our quotation of the trial court's ruling, which begins "[The letters] do show …," the two references to "[M]" in that paragraph should, instead, read "[J]."

¶6Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

/232/orapp/266 · .json · Public domain