State v. Romero

Full title: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHN WAYNE ROMERO…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Date published: Feb 10, 2021

309 Or. App. 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)

481 P.3d 406

Opinion

A168238

02-10-2021

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John Wayne ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty by jury verdict of one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine for consideration, ORS 475.890 (Count 1); unlawful delivery of methamphetamine involving more than 10 grams, ORS 475.890 (Count 2); and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894 (Count 3). The court merged the guilty verdicts on the first two counts, and entered convictions on Counts 2 and 3. The jury was instructed that it need not be unanimous, but was not polled. ¹ On appeal, defendant raises several assignments of error concerning pretrial and trial matters, including an argument that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. We reject without discussion all of defendant's arguments concerning trial except his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. Defendant contends that all verdicts must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). We reject that argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Dilallo , 367 Or. 340, 478 P.3d 509 (2020).

1 Defendant asserts in his opening brief that the jury was not unanimous as to Count 2. However, neither the transcript nor the jury verdict form reflects that the jury was polled on that count or the other counts.
--------

Affirmed.