State v. Sierra, 247 P.3d 759

State sought reconsideration of this court's prior State v. Sierra decision, seeking clarity on remand scope.
Defendant was convicted of multiple counts, including one count of first-degree kidnapping and two counts of second-degree kidnapping.
On appeal, the court affirmed first-degree kidnapping and reversed the two second-degree kidnapping convictions for insufficient evidence.
The final paragraph of the prior opinion remanded for entry of judgment of acquittal on the two second-degree counts.
The State argued ORS 138.222(5)(b) requires remand for resentencing on the remaining affirmed convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of remand after partial reversal	Sierra argues remand limited to acquittal on counts; no resentencing implied.	Sierra contends remand scope is ambiguous.	Remand must include resentencing on affirmed counts.
ORS 138.222(5)(b) applicability	Statutory remand for resentencing applies when some counts affirmed.	Statute not binding on remand scope in this context.	Statute requires remand for resentencing on affirmed counts.
Disposition on remand	Remand should be limited to acquittal on second-degree counts.	Affirmed counts must be resentenced under statute.	Remand includes acquittal on second-degree counts and resentencing on remaining counts.
Modified disposition authority	Modification preserves prior appellate posture.	Court has authority to refine remand instructions.	Court withdraws prior dispositional paragraph and issues explicit remand directive.

State v. Sierra, 349 Or. 506 (2010) (remand scope and sufficiency review for kidnapping convictions)
State v. Smith, 323 Or. 450 (1996) (sentencing authority after valid sentence has been served)