Opinion
A172305 (Control), A172306
06-16-2021
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Andrew Kenneth SAMDAHL, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.
PER CURIAM In the first of these consolidated cases, defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdicts of attempting to elude (Count 1), and third-degree escape (Count 5). In the second of these consolidated cases, the trial court found defendant in punitive contempt based on two violations of a court order and placed him on probation. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court plainly erred in receiving nonunanimous verdicts on Counts 1 and 5 in the first case. The state concedes that the court erred in that respect. See Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020), (holding that nonunanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses violate the Sixth Amendment); State v. Ulery , 366 Or. 500, 501, 464 P.3d 1123 (2020) (holding that a trial court's acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict constitutes plain error). We agree and, for the reasons stated in Ulery , id . at 504, 464 P.3d 1123, reverse and remand as to the convictions based on nonunanimous verdicts. For the reasons expressed in State v. Kincheloe , 367 Or. 335, 478 P.3d 507 (2020), we reject defendant's challenge with respect to the counts receiving unanimous jury verdicts. Defendant also challenges the trial court's imposition of a special condition of probation in the contempt case; we reject defendant's argument on that issue without discussion.
In Case No. 19CR37815, convictions on Counts 1 and 5 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. In Case No. 19CN02709, affirmed.