State v. Chavez-Echeverria

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Chavez-Echeverria

466 P.3d 1046, 304 Or. App. 868

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 17, 2020

DocketA164920

StatusPublished

This text of 466 P.3d 1046 (State v. Chavez-Echeverria) 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. Chavez-Echeverria, 466 P.3d 1046, 304 Or. App. 868 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Argued and submitted February 12, 2019, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JESSIE CHAVEZ-ECHEVERRIA, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 16CR32732, C152304CR; A164920 (Control), A164922 466 P3d 1046

Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.* PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded.

______________ * DeVore, J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore. Cite as 304 Or App 868 (2020) 869

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury ver- dicts of attempted murder, ORS 163.155 and ORS 161.405, first-degree assault, ORS 163.185, unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220, and third-degree assault, ORS 163.165. On appeal, defendant makes numerous arguments concerning alleged errors that occurred during trial and at sentencing. Defendant also argues that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts constitutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, 464 P3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s acceptance of a nonunan- imous verdict constituted plain error and exercised discre- tion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts on each of the convictions in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obviates the need to address defen- dant’s remaining arguments. Reversed and remanded.

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

Argued and submitted February 12, 2019, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JESSIE CHAVEZ-ECHEVERRIA, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 16CR32732, C152304CR; A164920 (Control), A164922 466 P3d 1046

Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.* PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded.

______________ * DeVore, J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore. Cite as 304 Or App 868 (2020) 869

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury ver- dicts of attempted murder, ORS 163.155 and ORS 161.405, first-degree assault, ORS 163.185, unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220, and third-degree assault, ORS 163.165. On appeal, defendant makes numerous arguments concerning alleged errors that occurred during trial and at sentencing. Defendant also argues that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts constitutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, 464 P3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s acceptance of a nonunan- imous verdict constituted plain error and exercised discre- tion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts on each of the convictions in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obviates the need to address defen- dant’s remaining arguments. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 P.3d 1046, 304 Or. App. 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chavez-echeverria-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack