State v. Snyder

501 P.3d 1146, 317 Or. App. 124

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: January 20, 2022
• Docket: A173595
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted December 30, 2021; conviction on Count 2 reversed, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed January 20; petition for review denied June 2, 2022 (369 Or 785)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DALE JOHN SNYDER, Defendant-Appellant. Curry County Circuit Court 19CR70122; A173595 501 P3d 1146

Cynthia Lynnae Beaman, 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 Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Armstrong, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Conviction on Count 2 reversed; remanded for resentenc- ing; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 317 Or App 124 (2022) 125

PER CURIAM In this criminal appeal, the trial court gave the jury a nonunanimous jury instruction, and the jury returned a nonunanimous guilty verdict on Count 2 and unanimous guilty verdicts on Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Defendant was acquitted on Count 1.). The guilty verdict for Count 3 was merged into Count 2 and the guilty verdict for Count 6 was merged into Count 4. Defendant assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on Count 5, and he raises a challenge under Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We reject the assignment of error concerning the MJOA without written discussion. As to defendant’s Ramos challenge, we accept the state’s concession that the trial court erred in accepting the nonunanimous guilty verdict for Count 2 and reject defendant’s arguments concerning the verdicts for which the jury unanimously found defen- dant guilty. Ramos, 590 US ___; State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319, 334, 478 P3d 515 (2020). We reverse defendant’s conviction on Count 2 and remand the case for resentencing, which includes entering a new disposition for Count 3. See State v. Bittick, 316 Or App 686, 687-88, 502 P3d 1196 (2021) (doing same). Conviction on Count 2 reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.