State v. Davis

                                374

           Submitted January 16, affirmed February 20, 2020


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                  DREW JAMES DAVIS,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
                 Coos County Circuit Court
                  17CR32193, 17CR36901;
                 A167887 (Control), A167888
                            

   Martin E. Stone, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
   Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Sercombe, Senior Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2020)                              375

        PER CURIAM
          In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant
appeals judgments of conviction, entered after a bench
trial, for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS
166.270(1); one count of unlawful possession of a firearm,
ORS 166.250; and one count of failure to appear, ORS
162.205. He raises two assignments of error, both of which
challenge his sentences. He contends that the trial court
(1) abused its discretion by refusing to grant a new sentencingenhancement trial or, alternatively, by refusing to strike
certain testimony, as a sanction for a discovery violation by
the state; and (2) erred in determining that defendant’s sentence for failure to appear could be enhanced on the basis
that he committed that crime for the purpose of evading
prosecution (in addition to other bases for enhancement that
the trial court concluded independently warranted enhancement). In response, the state argues that the court did not
err in either respect but that, if it erred in one way or the
other, the court’s speaking verdict shows that either alleged
error had little likelihood of affecting the court’s decision.
See State v. Davis, 

, 

 (2003) (articulating test for harmless error). Having considered the record,
we agree with the state that the alleged errors by the trial
court—if errors—were harmless under the circumstances of
this case, and we affirm for that reason.
        Affirmed.