304 ORAPP 850 - State v. Hanson

                                850

        Submitted May 29, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020


                  STATE OF OREGON,
                   Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
             JONATHAN DAVID HANSON,
              aka Jonathan David Hansen,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
             Multnomah County Circuit Court
                  18CR37909; A170014

464 P3d 1153



  David F. Rees, Judge.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Kistler, Senior Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Reversed and remanded.
Cite as

304 Or App 850

 (2020)                              851

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was convicted of unlawful use of a vehicle based on a nonunanimous jury verdict. The jury also convicted defendant by a nonunanimous verdict of possession
of a stolen vehicle, which was merged with the conviction
for unlawful use of a vehicle. ORS 164.135; ORS 819.300.
Defendant contends that the trial court’s acceptance of
nonunanimous verdicts constitutes plain error under the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In
Ramos v. Louisiana,

590 US ___

140 S Ct 1390

206 L Ed 2d 583

 (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous
jury verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment. In State v.
Ulery,

366 Or 500, 504

464 P3d 1123

 (2020), the Oregon
Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s acceptance of a
nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error and exercised
discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the
error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court
did not weigh heavily against correction because the trial
court would not have been able to correct the error under
controlling law.
         The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance
of a nonunanimous verdict in this case constitutes plain
error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining arguments.
        Reversed and remanded.