State v. Sangrolla

481 P.3d 411, 309 Or. App. 316

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 10, 2021
• Docket: A168223
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted May 29, 2020; Count 5 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHREE KRISHNA SANGROLLA, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CR37625; A168223 481 P3d 411

Benjamin N. Souede, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Count 5 reversed and remanded; remanded for resen- tencing; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 309 Or App 316 (2021) 317

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by jury on one count of first-degree rape and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The jury was unanimous on the sexual abuse counts, but was not unanimous on Count 5, first-degree rape. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, in instructing the jury that it could return nonunanimous verdicts, and in imposing res- titution. We reject defendant’s evidentiary arguments with- out discussion. The state concedes that defendant’s convic- tion for first-degree rape based on a nonunanimous verdict must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We agree and accept that concession. Defendant argues that his remaining con- victions also should be reversed based on the erroneous nonunanimous verdict instruction. We reject that argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 478 P3d 515 (2020), in which the court concluded that the erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was harmless with respect to unanimous verdicts. The state also concedes that the trial court erred in imposing restitution. However, our reversal of Count 5 obviates the need to address that issue. Count 5 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.