State v. Rich

                                   639

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
   Submitted August 17, affirmed September 8, petition for review denied
                    December 29, 2022 (

)


                  STATE OF OREGON,
                   Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
              WARREN ALEXANDER RICH,
          aka Warren Rich, aka Warren Alex Rich,
                aka Warren Anthony Rich,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
               Jackson County Circuit Court
                   18CR71292; A174722

   Lorenzo A. Mejia, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kristin A. Carveth, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Warren Rich filed the supplemental brief pro se.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Julia Glick, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the briefs for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
   ORTEGA, P. J.
   Affirmed.
640                                               State v. Rich

         ORTEGA, P. J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him
of attempted first-degree murder, attempted first-degree
assault (merged with the attempted murder), unlawful use
of a weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, two counts
of first-degree burglary, and one count of second-degree
criminal mischief. He argues on appeal that the trial court
plainly erred in failing to acquit him sua sponte on the
attempted first-degree murder and attempted first-degree
assault charges because there was insufficient evidence that
he fired his weapon at the victim. On review, we consider
the facts in the light most favorable to the state and draw
all reasonable inferences in the state’s favor to determine
whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational
factfinder to find all the elements of the charged crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. An extended discussion of the
facts and arguments would not benefit the bench, the bar,
or the public. Evidence was presented that defendant shot
a cell phone, and disputed evidence was presented that he
also shot at a police officer. “It is not proper for [a reviewing
court] to hold that there is a reasonable doubt because of
conflicts in the evidence.” State v. King, 

,

 (1989). The court did not error or plainly err in
failing to acquit defendant of attempted first-degree murder
or attempted first-degree assault.
         Defendant also asserts in a pro se supplemental
brief that the trial court plainly erred in failing to merge
his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm with the
conviction for attempted first-degree murder. The trial court
did not err or plainly err, as each of those offenses contains
an element that the other does not. ORS 161.067(1).
         Affirmed.