Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon
State v. Smith
119 Or. App. 236
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1993-04-14
- Topic
- general
PER CURIAM Defendant petitions for review of our decision, 117 Or App 545, 843 P2d 1025 (1992), contending that our decision to affirm the sentence is contrary to our holding in State v. Harding, 116 Or App 29, 840 P2d 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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Smith. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
Defendant petitions for review of our decision, 117 Or App 545, 843 P2d 1025 (1992), contending that our decision to affirm the sentence is contrary to our holding in State v. Harding, 116 Or App 29, 840 P2d 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.