State v. Anner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Anner

347 Or. App. 417

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 19, 2026

DocketA183837

StatusUnpublished

This text of 347 Or. App. 417 (State v. Anner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Anner, 347 Or. App. 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 141 February 19, 2026 417

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAYNOLD BARRY ANNER, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 22CR45032; A183837

Chanpone P. Sinlapasai, Judge. Argued and submitted January 21, 2026. Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Oregon Public Defense Commission. Carson Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Deputy Attorney General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 418 State v. Anner

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from a conviction for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1), following a conditional guilty plea entered after the trial court denied defendant’s demurrer. On appeal, defendant asserts that the felon in possession statute, as applied to him, violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution, based on the fact that his prior felonies were nonviolent felonies. We affirm. Defendant’s argument under the state constitu- tion is unpreserved. Defendant requests plain error review, acknowledging that his argument is foreclosed by State v. Shelnutt, 309 Or App 474, 483 P3d 53, rev den, 368 Or 206 (2021), but asserting that that case was wrongly decided. We are unconvinced that Shelnutt was wrongly decided or that the trial court plainly erred under the Oregon Constitution. Although defendant’s federal argument has evolved since we initially addressed the issue in depth, it is foreclosed by our decision in State v. Parras, 326 Or App 246, 531 P3d 711 (2023), rev dismissed as improvidently allowed, 373 Or 284 (2025). See also State v. Ivey, 342 Or App 649, 577 P3d 884, rev den, 374 Or 616 (2025). Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

No. 141 February 19, 2026 417

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAYNOLD BARRY ANNER, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 22CR45032; A183837

Chanpone P. Sinlapasai, Judge. Argued and submitted January 21, 2026. Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Oregon Public Defense Commission. Carson Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Deputy Attorney General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 418 State v. Anner

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from a conviction for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1), following a conditional guilty plea entered after the trial court denied defendant’s demurrer. On appeal, defendant asserts that the felon in possession statute, as applied to him, violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution, based on the fact that his prior felonies were nonviolent felonies. We affirm. Defendant’s argument under the state constitu- tion is unpreserved. Defendant requests plain error review, acknowledging that his argument is foreclosed by State v. Shelnutt, 309 Or App 474, 483 P3d 53, rev den, 368 Or 206 (2021), but asserting that that case was wrongly decided. We are unconvinced that Shelnutt was wrongly decided or that the trial court plainly erred under the Oregon Constitution. Although defendant’s federal argument has evolved since we initially addressed the issue in depth, it is foreclosed by our decision in State v. Parras, 326 Or App 246, 531 P3d 711 (2023), rev dismissed as improvidently allowed, 373 Or 284 (2025). See also State v. Ivey, 342 Or App 649, 577 P3d 884, rev den, 374 Or 616 (2025). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 Or. App. 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anner-orctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack