Legal Opinion

State v. Lucio-Camargo

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 5, 2003No. 9802-31380; CA A104767PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*146EDMONDS, P. J.

Defendant appeals from two convictions for burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, arguing that he can be convicted of only one burglary. When the case was originally before us, we agreed and reversed and remanded the judgment for the entry of a single conviction of burglary. State v. Lucio-Camargo, 172 Or App 298, 18 P3d 467 (2001). The Supreme Court thereafter allowed review, vacated our decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Barnum, 333 Or 297, 39 P3d 178 (2002). State v. Lucio-Camargo, 334 Or 491, 52 P3d 1056 (2002). On reconsideration, we again…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  2. State v. CrotsleyOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State v. BarrettOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State v. TuckerOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State v. HicksOregon Supreme Court · 1958

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. WhiteOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  3. Bumgarner v. NoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  4. Ross v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  5. State v. WhiteOregon Supreme Court · 2006

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API