Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

S.K.C. v. Pitts

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 20, 2013

S.K.C., Petitioner below,
v.
RODRIGUEZ MCAUTHOR PITTS, Respondent below. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RODRIGUEZ MCAUTHOR PITTS, Defendant-Appellant.

Washington County Circuit Court C111200RO Gayle Ann Nachtigal, Judge.

On appellant's petition for reconsideration filed October 8, 2013. Opinion filed September 25, 2013. 258 Or.App. 676, 310 P.3d 1162.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Elizabeth Daily, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Hadlock, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks reconsideration of our decision in Chriswisser v. Pitts, 258 Or.App. 676, 310 P.3d 1162 (2013), in which we rejected his first assignment of error without discussion, reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment omitting a unitary assessment and offense surcharge as to his second and third assignments of error, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant asserts that we should reconsider our decision in this case because, although defendant "failed to inform the court that he was withdrawing his second and third assignments of error, " after briefing was complete "the trial court entered an 'amended judgment' omitting the erroneous monetary obligations." Under the circumstances, defendant contends that his second and third assignments of error were moot when this court issued its decision and, because the court rejected without discussion the only other issue raised by defendant on appeal, "the correct disposition in this case is to affirm."

We agree with defendant. On April 12, 2013, the trial court entered an amended judgment omitting the unitary assessment and offense surcharge that we addressed in our original decision in this case. Accordingly, defendant's second and third assignments of error are moot. See State v. Balogh, 209 Or.App. 162, 163-64, 146 P.3d 335 (2006) (granting reconsideration because the defendant's assignment of error had "become moot by the time we decided it"). We therefore allow defendant's petition for reconsideration, withdraw our former opinion, and affirm.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.