State v. Rieuo

                                   531

 Argued and submitted April 11, affirmed May 11, petition for review denied
                     September 1, 2022 (

)


                    STATE OF OREGON,
                     Plaintiff-Respondent,
                               v.
                       ISIKAR RIEUO,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
               Multnomah County Circuit Court
                    19CR58968; A174538
                                

   Andrew M. Lavin, Judge.
   Andrew D. Robinson, 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 Powers, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge,
and Hellman, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
532                                             State v. Rieuo

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant waived his right to a jury and was found
guilty of kidnapping in the second degree, sexual abuse in
the second degree, two counts of sexual abuse in the third
degree, and rape in the third degree. On appeal, defendant
advances four assignments of error, arguing that the trial
court erred: (1) by accepting an invalid jury waiver; (2) by
conducting a bench trial based on an invalid waiver; (3) by
denying his motion for a new trial; and (4) by entering a
judgment of conviction for each count based on court verdicts when defendant had not made a valid jury waiver. We
affirm.
         Defendant’s first two assignments of error assert
that the trial court plainly erred in accepting his jury
waiver and conducting a bench trial because his jury waiver
was made without the knowledge of the right to a unanimous guilty verdict by the jury as required by Ramos v.
Louisiana, 

, 

, 

(2020). We recently rejected similar arguments in State v.
Austin, 

, 

 (2021), rev den, 

 (2022), which controls the outcome in this case.
          Turning to defendant’s third assignment of error
challenging the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new
trial, we conclude that the trial court correctly recognized
that it could not grant a motion for a new trial. As we recently
reiterated in State v. Keene, 

, 

(2022), “a motion for a new trial is not available in a criminal case tried to the bench.” See also State v. Stewart, 

, 

 (2010) (explaining that “the
inability of a trial court to entertain a defendant’s motion
for a new trial in a criminal case is a peripheral result of
waiving the right to a jury trial”). The statute governing
new trials in criminal cases, ORS 136.535, does not incorporate ORCP 64 C, the ORCP provision governing new trials
in cases tried to the bench. Accordingly, defendant’s third
assignment of error does not provide a basis for relief.
         Finally, because we conclude that the trial court
did not plainly err in accepting defendant’s jury waiver and
that the trial court had no authority to grant the motion
Cite as 

 (2022)                           533

for a new trial, we reject without further discussion defendant’s fourth assignment of error challenging the entry of
the judgment of conviction.
        Affirmed.