State v. Tallman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Tallman

484 P.3d 1132, 310 Or. App. 576

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 7, 2021

DocketA170902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 484 P.3d 1132 (State v. Tallman) 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. Tallman, 484 P.3d 1132, 310 Or. App. 576 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted March 9; convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed April 7, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EMILY TALLMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR41142; A170902 484 P3d 1132

Melvin Oden-Orr, Judge. Lindsey Burrows and O’Connor Weber LLC filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 310 Or App 576 (2021) 577

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted of fourteen counts of first- degree theft, ORS 164.055, and seven counts of aggravated first-degree theft, ORS 164.057.1 The convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 were by nonunanimous jury ver- dict. Defendant appeals the judgment of conviction, raising three assignments of error. We reject her first assignment without discussion. In her second and third assignments of error, she contends that the trial court erred under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by instruct- ing the jury that it could return nonunanimous guilty ver- dicts and by receiving nonunanimous verdicts. Defendant asks us to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial as to Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. The state concedes that because the con- victions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 were not the result of unanimous verdicts, those convictions should be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; other- wise affirmed.

1 On the state’s pretrial motion, the trial court dismissed one count of posses- sion of methamphetamine.

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

Submitted March 9; convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed April 7, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EMILY TALLMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR41142; A170902 484 P3d 1132

Melvin Oden-Orr, Judge. Lindsey Burrows and O’Connor Weber LLC filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. Cite as 310 Or App 576 (2021) 577

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted of fourteen counts of first- degree theft, ORS 164.055, and seven counts of aggravated first-degree theft, ORS 164.057.1 The convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 were by nonunanimous jury ver- dict. Defendant appeals the judgment of conviction, raising three assignments of error. We reject her first assignment without discussion. In her second and third assignments of error, she contends that the trial court erred under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by instruct- ing the jury that it could return nonunanimous guilty ver- dicts and by receiving nonunanimous verdicts. Defendant asks us to reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial as to Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the United States Supreme Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. The state concedes that because the con- victions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 were not the result of unanimous verdicts, those convictions should be reversed. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Convictions on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 12 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; other- wise affirmed.

1 On the state’s pretrial motion, the trial court dismissed one count of posses- sion of methamphetamine.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.3d 1132, 310 Or. App. 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tallman-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack