State v. Pasley

                                 585

          Submitted September 29, 2020, affirmed April 7, 2021


                    STATE OF OREGON,
                     Plaintiff-Respondent,
                               v.
                 JAMES STEVEN PASLEY,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
               Multnomah County Circuit Court
                    18CR29406; A170185
                             

   Karin Johana Immergut, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
Mooney, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
586                                          State v. Pasley

        PER CURIAM
         A unanimous jury found defendant guilty of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, and possession of a stolen vehicle (PSV), ORS 819.300. At sentencing,
the trial court merged the jury’s PSV verdict with the UUV
verdict, resulting in a single conviction for UUV. Defendant
argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal on both the PSV and UUV
counts. We reject those arguments without discussion.
Defendant further argues that the court plainly erred in
instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts and contends that, because providing the erroneous
jury instruction constituted structural error, his conviction
must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 

,

, 

 (2020), notwithstanding the
unanimous verdicts. The Supreme Court rejected that argument in State v. Flores Ramos, 

, 

(2020). Further, because the jury poll indicated unanimity
as to both counts, we decline to exercise our discretion to
review for plain error. See State v. Chorney-Phillips, 

, 

 (2020). We therefore reject defendant’s
argument concerning the nonunanimous jury instruction.
        Affirmed.