Frost v. State

The Court agreed that their use of State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 520 (2007) and State v. Berndt, 282 Or App 73, 80 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 311 (2017) could cause confusion between post-conviction relief petitions and the petition for reconsideration and removed this sentence in their previous opinion.

The State petitioned for reconsideration of State v. Frost, 320 Or App 753 (2022), assigning error to the Court's construction or application of the law in determining that any errors were plain. The State asserted that the Court incorrectly applied authority which governs whether an unpreserved error was plain. The Court agreed that their use of State v. Fults, 343 Or 515, 520 (2007) and State v. Berndt, 282 Or App 73, 80 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 311 (2017) could cause confusion between post-conviction relief petitions and the petition for reconsideration. The Court removed this sentence and citations to Fults and Berndt in their previous opinion. The Court additionally revised another sentence in their previous opinion, removing the phrase, "what matters[,]" to specify the necessary conditions for a petitioner's hearing.  Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified.