309 Or. App. 412 - State v. Sticka

                                 412

   Submitted January 26; in Case No. 16042410, reversed and remanded;
           in Case No. 17CR09185, affirmed February 18, 2021


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                  DANIEL PAUL STICKA,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
                Wallowa County Circuit Court
                   16042410, 17CR09185;
                 A169975 (Control), A169976

481 P3d 1035



   Eva J. Temple, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kristin A. Carveth, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
  In Case No. 16042410, reversed and remanded. In Case
No. 17CR09185, affirmed.
Cite as

309 Or App 412

 (2021)                             413

        PER CURIAM
         In each of these cases consolidated for purposes of
appeal, defendant was convicted on one count of violation of
a stalking protective order. In both cases, defendant asked
the trial court to instruct the juries that it needed to reach
unanimous verdicts, but the court instructed the juries
that they need not do so. In Case No. 16042410, the jury
returned a nonunanimous verdict for violation of a stalking
protective order. In Case No. 17CR09185, defendant was
convicted by unanimous jury on two counts of violation of a
stalking protective order, which the court merged into a single verdict. Defendant argues that he is entitled to reversal
of his convictions in both cases because the nonunanimous
jury instructions were erroneous. Ramos v. Louisiana,

590 US ___

140 S Ct 1390

206 L Ed 2d 583

 (2020). We agree
with defendant that the nonunanimous verdict in Case No.
16042410 requires reversal. As for Case No. 17CR09185,
defendant argues that the instructional error is structural
and he is therefore entitled to reversal of the unanimous
verdicts as well as the nonunanimous verdict. We reject that
argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Flores Ramos,

367 Or 292

478 P3d 515

 (2020), in which the Supreme Court
concluded that the erroneous nonunanimous jury instruction was harmless with respect to unanimous verdicts. In
Case No. 16042410, defendant makes an additional argument concerning other jury instructions; our reversal of the
conviction in that case obviates the need to address that
issue. In Case No. 17CR09185, defendant makes an additional argument that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence. We reject that assignment of error without
written discussion.
       In Case No. 16042410, reversed and remanded. In
Case No. 17CR09185, affirmed.