State v. Walker

                                    199

 Argued and submitted June 2, affirmed October 13, 2021, petition for review
                 denied February 24, 2022 (

)


                     STATE OF OREGON,
                      Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                v.
                   WILLIE JAMES WALKER,
                      aka Willie J. Walker,
                      Defendant-Appellant.
                  Jackson County Circuit Court
                      17CR52539; A172316
                               

   Lisa C. Greif, Judge.
   Zachary Lovett Mazer, 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.
   Daniel Norris, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
200                                                         State v. Walker

           PER CURIAM
        Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
three counts of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine,
ORS 475.890; one count of unlawful delivery of cocaine, ORS
475.880; and one count of felon in possession of body armor,
ORS 166.642. We affirm.
        In his first assignment of error, defendant contends
that the trial court erred by granting the state’s motion for
a continuance. We review for abuse of discretion. State v.
Thomas, 

, 

 (2014). Here,
having reviewed the record of the proceedings, we are not
persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the state’s motion under the particular circumstances
that presented themselves.1
         In his second assignment of error, defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his
conviction for delivery of methamphetamine on Count 1. We
conclude otherwise that the evidence was legally sufficient
to allow a reasonable factfinder to find defendant guilty on
that count.
           Affirmed.




    1
      In addition, we observe that defendant has not identified any harm flowing
from the grant of the motion. He does not contend that the continuance resulted
in the violation of his speedy trial rights, that, absent a continuance, he would
have been entitled to dismissal of the charges, or that the grant of the continuance prejudiced his ability to present a defense in some way. Absent identifiable prejudice of some form, an error in granting a continuance would not provide grounds for reversal. See, e.g., State v. Morris, 

, 371-72, 

 (2017) (error must prejudice a defendant’s substantial right to warrant
reversal).