State v. Thomas

                                    565

Argued and submitted February 25, affirmed April 7, petition for review denied
                       August 26, 2021 (

)


                      STATE OF OREGON,
                       Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                 v.
                    DEE SWISS THOMAS IV,
                      Defendant-Appellant.
                   Douglas County Circuit Court
                      19CR19914; A171235
                                

   Ann Marie Simmons, Judge. (Judgment)
   Frances Elaine Burge, Judge. (Amended Judgment)
   Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender, argued the
cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet,
Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
   Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
566                                         State v. Thomas

        PER CURIAM
         A unanimous jury found defendant guilty of two
counts of first-degree forgery, ORS 165.013; and two counts
of second-degree theft, ORS 164.045. Defendant also pleaded
guilty to one count each of felon in possession of a firearm,
ORS 166.270(1), and carrying a concealed weapon, ORS
166.240, but does not challenge his convictions on those
counts. On appeal, defendant makes numerous arguments
related to evidentiary issues concerning the forgery and
theft convictions. We reject each of those arguments without
discussion. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred
both by providing a jury instruction allowing nonunanimous verdicts and by accepting the verdicts after the erroneous instruction.
         While, in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 

,

, 

 (2020), providing a nonunanimous jury instruction was erroneous, it does not follow
that receiving unanimous verdicts and entering convictions
on those verdicts requires reversal as defendant requests.
Where, as here, the jury returned unanimous verdicts, as
evidenced in this case by a poll, the erroneous jury instruction was rendered “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Ciraulo, 

, 

 (2020).
        Affirmed.