State v. Monagon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Monagon

508 P.3d 998, 319 Or. App. 529

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 11, 2022

DocketA173723

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 508 P.3d 998 (State v. Monagon) 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. Monagon, 508 P.3d 998, 319 Or. App. 529 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Argued and submitted March 7; Counts 1 through 8 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed May 11; petition for review denied October 6, 2022 (370 Or 303)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VAUGHN LESLIE MONAGON, Defendant-Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 18CR05905; A173723 508 P3d 998

John L. Collins, Judge. Thaddeus Betz argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Counts 1 through 8 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 530 State v. Monagon

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for multiple counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427. Counts 1 through 8 were tried to a jury, and the jury returned nonunanimous guilty verdicts. Counts 9 and 10 were tried to the court, which rendered guilty verdicts.1 On appeal, defendant raises eight assignments of error. We write to address defendant’s first and second assignments of error and reject his third through eighth assignments of error without discussion. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that, to find defendant guilty of Counts 1 through 8, it must do so unanimously. In his second assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting a nonunan- imous verdict in Counts 1 through 8. The state concedes that the trial court erred by so failing to instruct the jury and by entering convictions on Counts 1 through 8 based on nonunanimous verdicts. In light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), we agree with the state and accept those concessions. Counts 1 through 8 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1 The trial court merged Counts 9 and 10 into a single conviction.

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

Argued and submitted March 7; Counts 1 through 8 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed May 11; petition for review denied October 6, 2022 (370 Or 303)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VAUGHN LESLIE MONAGON, Defendant-Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 18CR05905; A173723 508 P3d 998

John L. Collins, Judge. Thaddeus Betz argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Counts 1 through 8 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 530 State v. Monagon

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for multiple counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427. Counts 1 through 8 were tried to a jury, and the jury returned nonunanimous guilty verdicts. Counts 9 and 10 were tried to the court, which rendered guilty verdicts.1 On appeal, defendant raises eight assignments of error. We write to address defendant’s first and second assignments of error and reject his third through eighth assignments of error without discussion. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that, to find defendant guilty of Counts 1 through 8, it must do so unanimously. In his second assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting a nonunan- imous verdict in Counts 1 through 8. The state concedes that the trial court erred by so failing to instruct the jury and by entering convictions on Counts 1 through 8 based on nonunanimous verdicts. In light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), we agree with the state and accept those concessions. Counts 1 through 8 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1 The trial court merged Counts 9 and 10 into a single conviction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 P.3d 998, 319 Or. App. 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-monagon-orctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack