State v. Kyger

                                      604

On petitioner on review’s petition for reconsideration filed March 23, considered
 and under advisement April 12; petition for reconsideration allowed, former
         opinion modified and adhered to as modified April 21, 2022.*


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                   Respondent on Review,
                              v.
                 SCOTT WILLIAM KYGER,
                    Petitioner on Review.
          (CC 17CR08793) (CA A165404) (SC S068337)
                                   

     Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Kyger, 

, 

 (2022). Held: The opinion in Kyger,

, will be modified to revise the text of footnote 3, regarding the scope
of review.
   The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified
and adhered to as modified.



   Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, Salem, filed the petition for reconsideration on behalf of petitioner on review. Also on the petition was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender.
    No appearance contra.
  Before Walters, Chief Justice, and Balmer, Flynn, Duncan,
Nelson, Garrett, and DeHoog, Justices.
    GARRETT, J.
   The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former
opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.




______________
   * 

, 

 (2022); on review from the Court of Appeals, 

, 

 (2020).
Cite as 

 (2022)                                    605

        GARRETT, J.
        Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of our
decision in State v. Kyger, 

, 

 (2022),
objecting to the phrasing of footnote 3, which stated:
       “Although defendant raised other issues in his petition
   for review, he failed to present any briefing or argument on
   those issues. Accordingly, we do not reach them.”

 at 367 n 3. In his petition, defendant correctly points
out that this court’s order allowing review expressly limited review to the issue that we addressed in our opinion.
Footnote 3 implies that defendant had, and abandoned, an
opportunity to present argument on other issues. That is
incorrect. Accordingly, we replace the text of footnote 3,
quoted above, with the following:
       “Although defendant raised other issues in his petition
   for review, we denied review on those issues, and they are
   not before us.”
        The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.