From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Chavez-Echeverria

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Jun 17, 2020
304 Or. App. 868 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

A164920 (Control) A164922

06-17-2020

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jessie CHAVEZ-ECHEVERRIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Mary M. Reese, 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. Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.


Mary M. Reese, 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.

Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

DeVore, J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore.

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdicts of attempted murder, ORS 163.155 and ORS 161.405, first-degree assault, ORS 163.185, unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220, and third-degree assault, ORS 163.165. On appeal, defendant makes numerous arguments concerning alleged errors that occurred during trial and at sentencing. Defendant also argues that the trial court's acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts constitutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery , 366 Or. 500, 504, 464 P.3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court's acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error and exercised discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law.

The state concedes that the trial court's acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts on each of the convictions in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery , we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant's remaining arguments.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

State v. Chavez-Echeverria

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Jun 17, 2020
304 Or. App. 868 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)
Case details for

State v. Chavez-Echeverria

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JESSIE CHAVEZ-ECHEVERRIA…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Jun 17, 2020

Citations

304 Or. App. 868 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)
466 P.3d 1046