310 Or. App. 372 - State v. Sandoval

                                372

         Submitted November 12, 2020, affirmed March 31, 2021


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
               BRANDY MARIE SANDOVAL,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
                Douglas County Circuit Court
                   18CR55948; A170653

484 P3d 401



   Ann Marie Simmons, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Zachary Lovett Mazer, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
Cite as

310 Or App 372

 (2021)                              373

        PER CURIAM
         Following a short police chase in Douglas County,
defendant was charged with and convicted by a jury of multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to provide
jury-concurrence instructions for several of the counts and,
additionally, by instructing the jury that it could convict by
nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without written discussion all of the assignments of error except that relating to
the nonunanimous jury instruction.
         In her fifth assignment, defendant claims that the
trial court committed a structural error by instructing the
jury it could return a nonunanimous verdict. Subsequent
to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v.
Louisiana,

590 US ___

140 S Ct 1390

206 L Ed 2d 583

(2020), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that a nonunanimous jury instruction was not a structural error that categorically requires reversal. State v. Flores Ramos,

367 Or 292, 319

478 P3d 515

 (2020). As this issue was not preserved
and no jury poll was conducted, we decline to exercise our
discretion to review the nonunanimous jury instructions for
plain error. State v. Dilallo,

367 Or 340, 348-49

478 P3d 509

 (2020) (explaining that plain error review for nonunanimous jury instructions without an accompanying jury poll
is “contrary to the basic goal of procedural fairness … that
motivates the preservation requirement”).
        Affirmed.