State v. Wellington

466 P.3d 96, 304 Or. App. 455

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: May 28, 2020
• Docket: A167969
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted April 2, reversed and remanded May 28, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JERRY THOMAS WELLINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 17CR09581; A167969 466 P3d 96

Thomas J. Rastetter, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jordan R. Silk, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 456 State v. Wellington

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for 30 different sex offenses. The jury’s verdict on each convic- tion was 10-2. On appeal, defendant assigns error to (1) the trial court’s failure to require the state to elect specific fac- tual occurrences for each crime; (2) the court’s instruction to the jury that it could find defendant guilty by nonunani- mous verdicts; and (3) the court’s entry of convictions on the 30 counts of conviction (Counts 1 and 2, 4 to 10, and 12 to 32) when the jury was not unanimous on any of those counts. As for defendant’s second and third assignments of error, under Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), defendant is entitled to reversal of all of his convictions and a remand for retrial, because each conviction was based on a 10-2 verdict in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As for defendant’s first assignment of error, it is predicated largely on the way the evidence developed at trial, and the evidence may develop differently on retrial. For that reason, we decline to reach the first assignment of error. Reversed and remanded.