Oregon v. Vallin

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

In previous proceedings before the Oregon Supreme Court, the Court agreed with defendant Santiago Vallin that the trial court had erred in imposing a sentence under ORS 137.717(1)(b) (2015). The Court concluded the 2017 version of that statute, Or Laws 2017, ch 673, section 5, governed defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, the dispositional “tag line” of the opinion remanded the case for resentencing. Although he prevailed on the merits, defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's opinion, specifically seeking modification of the tag line in light of his conditional plea, which he was permitted to withdraw on remand. The state did not file a response in opposition to defendant’s petition. The Supreme Court allowed defendant’s petition for reconsideration and modified its earlier tag line, to remand the case for further proceedings as: “The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.”

Download PDF
No. 16 March 28, 2019 573 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SANTIAGO MAXIMO VALLIN, aka Santiago Vallin, Defendant-Appellant. (CC 17CR35704) (SC S065957) En Banc On defendant-appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed February 7, 2019; considered and under advisement February 26, 2019.* Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, Salem, filed the petition for reconsideration for appellant. No appearance contra. WALTERS, C. J. The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified. Case Summary: Defendant, who prevailed before the Oregon Supreme Court in his challenge to trial court’s refusal to sentence him under 2017 version of ORS 137.717(1)(b), State v. Vallin, 365 Or 295, 434 P3d 413 (2019), sought reconsideration and modification of the dispositional or “tag” line in the Court’s opinion, to remand “for further proceedings” rather than “for resentencing.” Held: The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified, except as to the nature of remand. ______________ *  364 Or 295, 434 P3d 413 (2019). 574 State v. Vallin WALTERS, C. J. In State v. Vallin, 364 Or 295, 434 P3d 413 (2019), this court agreed with defendant that the trial court had erred in imposing a sentence under ORS 137.717(1)(b) (2015). We concluded that the 2017 version of that statute, Or Laws 2017, ch 673, § 5, governed defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, the dispositional “tag line” of the opinion remanded the case for resentencing. Although he prevailed on the merits, defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion. He specifically seeks modification of the tag line in light of his conditional plea below, which he is permitted to withdraw on remand. See 364 Or at 298-99 (setting out factual background); ORS 135.335(3) (effect of conditional plea is to reserve right to appeal specific adverse pretrial determination; defendant who prevails on appeal may withdraw earlier plea). The state has not filed a response in opposition to defendant’s petition. We allow defendant’s petition for reconsideration and modify our earlier tag line, to remand the case for further proceedings as follows: “The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.” The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.

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.