State v. Snyder

Full title: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DALE JOHN SNYDER…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon

Date published: Jan 20, 2022

317 Or. App. 124 (Or. Ct. App. 2022)

501 P.3d 1146

Opinion

A173595

01-20-2022

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dale John SNYDER, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Stacy M. Chaffin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Armstrong, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM

In this criminal appeal, the trial court gave the jury a nonunanimous jury instruction, and the jury returned a nonunanimous guilty verdict on Count 2 and unanimous guilty verdicts on Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Defendant was acquitted on Count 1.). The guilty verdict for Count 3 was merged into Count 2 and the guilty verdict for Count 6 was merged into Count 4. Defendant assigns as error the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on Count 5, and he raises a challenge under Ramos v. Louisiana , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d 583 (2020). We reject the assignment of error concerning the MJOA without written discussion. As to defendant's Ramos challenge, we accept the state's concession that the trial court erred in accepting the nonunanimous guilty verdict for Count 2 and reject defendant's arguments concerning the verdicts for which the jury unanimously found defendant guilty. Ramos , 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 1390 ; State v. Flores Ramos , 367 Or. 292, 319, 334, 478 P.3d 515 (2020). We reverse defendant's conviction on Count 2 and remand the case for resentencing, which includes entering a new disposition for Count 3. See State v. Bittick , 316 Or. App. 686, 687-88, ––– P.3d –––– (2021) (doing same).

Conviction on Count 2 reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.