State v. Pasley

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Pasley

484 P.3d 1102, 310 Or. App. 585

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 7, 2021

DocketA170185

StatusPublished

This text of 484 P.3d 1102 (State v. Pasley) 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. Pasley, 484 P.3d 1102, 310 Or. App. 585 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted September 29, 2020, affirmed April 7, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES STEVEN PASLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CR29406; A170185 484 P3d 1102

Karin Johana Immergut, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 586 State v. Pasley

PER CURIAM A unanimous jury found defendant guilty of unau- thorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, and posses- sion of a stolen vehicle (PSV), ORS 819.300. At sentencing, the trial court merged the jury’s PSV verdict with the UUV verdict, resulting in a single conviction for UUV. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on both the PSV and UUV counts. We reject those arguments without discussion. Defendant further argues that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous ver- dicts and contends that, because providing the erroneous jury instruction constituted structural error, his conviction must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), notwithstanding the unanimous verdicts. The Supreme Court rejected that argu- ment in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319, 478 P3d 515 (2020). Further, because the jury poll indicated unanimity as to both counts, we decline to exercise our discretion to review for plain error. See State v. Chorney-Phillips, 367 Or 355, 359, 478 P3d 504 (2020). We therefore reject defendant’s argument concerning the nonunanimous jury instruction. Affirmed.

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

Submitted September 29, 2020, affirmed April 7, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES STEVEN PASLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CR29406; A170185 484 P3d 1102

Karin Johana Immergut, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 586 State v. Pasley

PER CURIAM A unanimous jury found defendant guilty of unau- thorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, and posses- sion of a stolen vehicle (PSV), ORS 819.300. At sentencing, the trial court merged the jury’s PSV verdict with the UUV verdict, resulting in a single conviction for UUV. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on both the PSV and UUV counts. We reject those arguments without discussion. Defendant further argues that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous ver- dicts and contends that, because providing the erroneous jury instruction constituted structural error, his conviction must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), notwithstanding the unanimous verdicts. The Supreme Court rejected that argu- ment in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319, 478 P3d 515 (2020). Further, because the jury poll indicated unanimity as to both counts, we decline to exercise our discretion to review for plain error. See State v. Chorney-Phillips, 367 Or 355, 359, 478 P3d 504 (2020). We therefore reject defendant’s argument concerning the nonunanimous jury instruction. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.3d 1102, 310 Or. App. 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pasley-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack