State v. Lewis

481 P.3d 408, 309 Or. App. 328

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 10, 2021
• Docket: A168804
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted April 24, 2020, affirmed February 10, petition for review denied July 15, 2021 (368 Or 402)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN PAUL LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR52730; A168804 481 P3d 408

John A. Wittmayer, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 328 (2021) 329

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by jury on two counts of first-degree robbery, one count of second-degree robbery, unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful use of a vehicle. The trial court instructed the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts, but the jury nonetheless reached unan- imous verdicts on all counts. The trial court merged one of the first-degree robbery verdicts into the other, and also merged the second-degree robbery and unlawful use of a vehicle verdicts into the first-degree robbery verdict. The court then entered a judgment of conviction on one count of first-degree robbery and one count of unlawful use of a weapon. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence, and also that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. We reject without written discus- sion defendant’s evidentiary argument. As for his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts, defendant contends that because of the erroneous jury instruction, his convic- tions must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We reject that argument for the reasons the Oregon Supreme Court set forth in State v. Chorney-Phillips, 367 Or 355, 478 P3d 504 (2020), and its companion cases. Affirmed.