State v. Granberg

                                  696

 Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court October 22, affirmed
  December 29, 2021, petition for review denied May 19, 2022 (

)


                    STATE OF OREGON,
                     Plaintiff-Respondent,
                               v.
               JOSEPH ANGELO GRANBERG,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
               Washington County Circuit Court
                  17CR01419, C160541CR;
                 A164940 (Control), A164941
                              

  On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, State v.
Granberg, 

, 

 (2021).
  Eric Butterfield, Judge.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the briefs for respondent.
  Before Powers, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge,
and Lagesen, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2021)                             697

        PER CURIAM
         In this criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court
vacated and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in
light of its decision in State v. Keys, 

, 

 (2021) (Keys II). State v. Granberg, 

, 

 (2020), vac’d and rem’d for recons, 

, 

 (2021). In Keys II, the court concluded that a defective waiver of the right to a preliminary hearing does not
deprive a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. 

. The court then remanded that case to us with
instructions to consider whether we should exercise our discretion to reach the validity of the defendant’s waiver under
the plain error doctrine. 

. This case presents the
same issue. On remand, defendant argues that the trial
court plainly erred in entering a judgment of conviction,
despite his stand-in counsel unilaterally waiving his right
to a preliminary hearing. For the reasons explained in our
recent decision in State v. Keys, 

, 

 (2021) (Keys III), we conclude that the trial court did not
commit plain error.
         Having resolved the jurisdictional issue, we turn to
defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s denial of his motion
to suppress evidence, which we did not reach given our earlier disposition. See Granberg, 

 n 1. After
reviewing the parties’ arguments on appeal and the record,
we conclude that, because the seizure was justified by reasonable suspicion, the trial court did not err in denying
the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s
assignment of error without further discussion.
        Affirmed.