State v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Thomas

484 P.3d 1126, 310 Or. App. 565

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 7, 2021

DocketA171235

StatusPublished

This text of 484 P.3d 1126 (State v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 484 P.3d 1126, 310 Or. App. 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Argued and submitted February 25, affirmed April 7, petition for review denied August 26, 2021 (368 Or 515)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEE SWISS THOMAS IV, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 19CR19914; A171235 484 P3d 1126

Ann Marie Simmons, Judge. (Judgment) Frances Elaine Burge, Judge. (Amended Judgment) Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 566 State v. Thomas

PER CURIAM A unanimous jury found defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree forgery, ORS 165.013; and two counts of second-degree theft, ORS 164.045. Defendant also pleaded guilty to one count each of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1), and carrying a concealed weapon, ORS 166.240, but does not challenge his convictions on those counts. On appeal, defendant makes numerous arguments related to evidentiary issues concerning the forgery and theft convictions. We reject each of those arguments without discussion. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred both by providing a jury instruction allowing nonunani- mous verdicts and by accepting the verdicts after the erro- neous instruction. While, in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), providing a nonunan- imous jury instruction was erroneous, it does not follow that receiving unanimous verdicts and entering convictions on those verdicts requires reversal as defendant requests. Where, as here, the jury returned unanimous verdicts, as evidenced in this case by a poll, the erroneous jury instruc- tion was rendered “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ciraulo, 367 Or 350, 354, 478 P3d 502 (2020). Affirmed.

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

Argued and submitted February 25, affirmed April 7, petition for review denied August 26, 2021 (368 Or 515)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEE SWISS THOMAS IV, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 19CR19914; A171235 484 P3d 1126

Ann Marie Simmons, Judge. (Judgment) Frances Elaine Burge, Judge. (Amended Judgment) Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 566 State v. Thomas

PER CURIAM A unanimous jury found defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree forgery, ORS 165.013; and two counts of second-degree theft, ORS 164.045. Defendant also pleaded guilty to one count each of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1), and carrying a concealed weapon, ORS 166.240, but does not challenge his convictions on those counts. On appeal, defendant makes numerous arguments related to evidentiary issues concerning the forgery and theft convictions. We reject each of those arguments without discussion. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred both by providing a jury instruction allowing nonunani- mous verdicts and by accepting the verdicts after the erro- neous instruction. While, in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), providing a nonunan- imous jury instruction was erroneous, it does not follow that receiving unanimous verdicts and entering convictions on those verdicts requires reversal as defendant requests. Where, as here, the jury returned unanimous verdicts, as evidenced in this case by a poll, the erroneous jury instruc- tion was rendered “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ciraulo, 367 Or 350, 354, 478 P3d 502 (2020). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.3d 1126, 310 Or. App. 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack