State v. Jones (A164035)

464 P.3d 1141, 304 Or. App. 858

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: June 17, 2020
• Docket: A164035
• Status: Published

Opinion

Argued and submitted December 6, 2018, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NICHOLAS CLIFTON JONES, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 15CR38327; A164035 464 P3d 1141

David F. Rees, Judge. Anne Fujita Munsey, 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. Joanna L. Jenkins, 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 Lagesen, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.* PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded.

______________ * Lagesen, J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore. Cite as 304 Or App 858 (2020) 859

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted on two counts of promot- ing prostitution and two counts of attempted promoting prostitution by nonunanimous jury verdicts. ORS 167.012. Defendant 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 in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our dis- cretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obvi- ates the need to address defendant’s remaining arguments. Reversed and remanded.