State v. Stewart

                                    376

  Submitted October 20, 2020, affirmed March 31, petition for review denied
                       August 26, 2021 (

)


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
               GREGORY D’ANDRE STEWART,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
                 Marion County Circuit Court
                  18CR71310, 19CN01656;
                 A170992 (Control), A170993
                                

   Audrey J. Broyles, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the opening brief for appellant. Gregory D. Stewart filed the supplemental brief pro se.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2021)                                        377

          PER CURIAM
         In these consolidated appeals, defendant seeks
reversal of a judgment of conviction based on unanimous jury
verdicts of one count each of unauthorized use of a vehicle,
ORS 164.135, and identity theft, ORS 165.800.1 Defendant
assigns error to the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, imposition of a partially consecutive sentence for the convictions, and instruction to the jury that
it could return nonunanimous verdicts. We reject without
written discussion all of the assignments of error except
that related to the nonunanimous jury instruction.
         Regarding the giving of a nonunanimous jury
instruction, defendant asserts that it was a structural error
that requires reversal. Subsequent to the United States
Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 

,

, 

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

, 

 (2020).
Additionally, when, as here, the jury’s verdict was unanimous despite the nonunanimous instruction, such an erroneous instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Kincheloe, 

, 

 (2020).
          Affirmed.




   1
     In Case No. A170993, defendant separately appealed a judgment of contempt, but has raised no separate challenges to that judgment.