S. K. C. / State v. Pitts
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: November 20, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 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 A149549 Gayle Ann Nachtigal, Judge. On appellant's petition for reconsideration filed October 8, 2013. Opinion filed September 25, 2013. 258 Or App 676, 310 P3d 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 PER CURIAM Petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant seeks reconsideration of our decision in Chriswisser v. Pitts, 258 3 Or App 676, 310 P3d 1162 (2013), in which we rejected his first assignment of error 4 without discussion, reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment omitting a unitary 5 assessment and offense surcharge as to his second and third assignments of error, and 6 otherwise affirmed. 7 Defendant asserts that we should reconsider our decision in this case 8 because, although defendant "failed to inform the court that he was withdrawing his 9 second and third assignments of error," after briefing was complete "the trial court 10 entered an 'amended judgment' omitting the erroneous monetary obligations." Under the 11 circumstances, defendant contends that his second and third assignments of error were 12 moot when this court issued its decision and, because the court rejected without 13 discussion the only other issue raised by defendant on appeal, "the correct disposition in 14 this case is to affirm." 15 We agree with defendant. On April 12, 2013, the trial court entered an 16 amended judgment omitting the unitary assessment and offense surcharge that we 17 addressed in our original decision in this case. Accordingly, defendant's second and third 18 assignments of error are moot. See State v. Balogh, 209 Or App 162, 163-64, 146 P3d 19 335 (2006) (granting reconsideration because the defendant's assignment of error had 20 "become moot by the time we decided it"). We therefore allow defendant's petition for 21 reconsideration, withdraw our former opinion, and affirm. 1 1 Petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
