State v. Richardson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Richardson

479 P.3d 628, 308 Or. App. 831

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 27, 2021

DocketA171458

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 479 P.3d 628 (State v. Richardson) 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. Richardson, 479 P.3d 628, 308 Or. App. 831 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted December 22, 2020; Count 1 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed January 27, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KENT RICHARDSON, aka Kent R. Richardson, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CR59962; A171458 479 P3d 628

Michael A. Greenlick, 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 E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Count 1 reversed and remanded; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. 832 State v. Richardson

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of delivery of methamphetamine (Count 1) and possession of metham- phetamine (Count 2). The jury was instructed that its ver- dicts need not be unanimous, which was error under the Sixth Amendment. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). The jury was unanimous as to Count 2, but not as to Count 1. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred in giving the nonunanimous jury instruction, that the error was structural error, and that both of his con- victions therefore should be reversed. The state concedes that defendant is entitled to reversal on the nonunanimous count. We agree and accept the concession, and exercise dis- cretion to correct the error for the reasons set forth in State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P3d 1123 (2020). As for defendant’s structural error argument concerning the remaining con- viction, he makes the same arguments that were rejected in State v. Kincheloe, 367 Or 335, 478 P3d 507 (2020), and its companion cases. Count 1 reversed and remanded; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

Submitted December 22, 2020; Count 1 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed January 27, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KENT RICHARDSON, aka Kent R. Richardson, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 18CR59962; A171458 479 P3d 628

Michael A. Greenlick, 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 E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Count 1 reversed and remanded; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. 832 State v. Richardson

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of delivery of methamphetamine (Count 1) and possession of metham- phetamine (Count 2). The jury was instructed that its ver- dicts need not be unanimous, which was error under the Sixth Amendment. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). The jury was unanimous as to Count 2, but not as to Count 1. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred in giving the nonunanimous jury instruction, that the error was structural error, and that both of his con- victions therefore should be reversed. The state concedes that defendant is entitled to reversal on the nonunanimous count. We agree and accept the concession, and exercise dis- cretion to correct the error for the reasons set forth in State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P3d 1123 (2020). As for defendant’s structural error argument concerning the remaining con- viction, he makes the same arguments that were rejected in State v. Kincheloe, 367 Or 335, 478 P3d 507 (2020), and its companion cases. Count 1 reversed and remanded; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 P.3d 628, 308 Or. App. 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-richardson-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack