Opinion
A178802
01-10-2024
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSHUA BRANDON WILLIAMS, aka John Doe, 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 Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted August 21, 2023
Baker County Circuit Court 22CR05814; Matthew B. Shirtcliff, Judge.
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 Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Hellman, Judge, and Armstrong, Senior Judge.
Affirmed.
HELLMAN, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for third-degree robbery, ORS 164.395, and first-degree criminal trespass, ORS 164.255. In his sole assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal for third-degree robbery because there was insufficient evidence that defendant used or threatened physical force.
Defendant's robbery conviction was based, in relevant part, on evidence that he quickly grabbed a motel key card out of the victim's hand while the victim was using it to enter the motel. Defendant concedes that in State v. Johnson, 215 Or.App. 1, 5-6, 168 P.3d 312, rev den, 343 Or. 366 (2007), we held that a person uses "physical force" sufficient to support a conviction for robbery by "taking the victim's property so quickly that resistance is futile." However, he contends that Johnson is plainly wrong under the test established in State v. Civil, 283 Or.App. 395, 406, 388 P.3d 1185 (2017). Defendant advances three arguments as to why Johnson is plainly wrong: (1) it is not consistent with State v. Hamilton, 348 Or. 371, 233 P.3d 432 (2010); (2) it is not reconcilable with the plain text of the robbery statute; and (3) it incorrectly allows a robbery conviction when physical force was directed only at the property, not at the victim. The arguments that defendant advances here are not "qualitatively new," nor do they persuade us that Johnson is plainly wrong under the "rigorous" standard established in Civil. See Civil, 283 Or.App. at 416.
Affirmed.