
    On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed May 31,
    reconsideration allowed; original opinion (167 Or App 297, 999 P2d 1220) modified and adhered to as modified July 12, 2000
    STATE OF OREGON, Appellant, v. KEITH DEE WRIGHT, Respondent.
    
    (99-1018; CA A106682)
    7 P3d 738
    Elizabeth A. Baldwin for petition.
    Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Wollheim, Judges.
    HASELTON, J.
   HASELTON, J.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration, challenging our opinion, State v. Wright, 167 Or App 297, 999 P2d 1220 (2000), in many respects. We allow the petition to correct one statement in our opinion and reject defendant’s other challenges without discussion.

Our opinion states:

“Defendant responds that ‘sufficiency’ under subsection (4) and ‘definiteness and certainty’ under subsection (2) and ORS 132.550(7) are distinct concepts and distinct requirements generally analogous in the civil context to the bases for a motion to dismiss for ‘failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim,’ ORCP 21 A(8), and a motion to make more definite and certain under ORCP 21 D.” 167 Or App at 303-04 (original emphasis bold; emphasis added).

Defendant contends that he never analogized a demurrer for lack of specificity to an ORCP 21 motion. That is correct. The italicized language, while generally intended to illustrate the distinction defendant posited, is not properly ascribed to defendant. Accordingly, the opinion is modified so that the balance of the sentence following “requirements” is deleted.

Reconsideration allowed; original opinion modified and adhered to as modified.  