State v. Williams

222                    January 10, 2024                  No. 30

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                 STATE OF OREGON,
                  Plaintiff-Respondent,
                            v.
             JOSHUA BRANDON WILLIAMS,
                     aka John Doe,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
               Baker County Circuit Court
                 22CR05814; A178802

   Matthew B. Shirtcliff, Judge.
   Submitted August 21, 2023.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Hellman, Judge,
and Armstrong, Senior Judge.
   HELLMAN, J.
   Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)             223

        HELLMAN, J.
         Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction
for third-degree robbery, ORS 164.395, and first-degree
criminal trespass, ORS 164.255. In his sole assignment of
error, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it
denied his motion for judgment of acquittal for third-degree
robbery because there was insufficient evidence that defendant used or threatened physical force.
         Defendant’s robbery conviction was based, in relevant part, on evidence that he quickly grabbed a motel key
card out of the victim’s hand while the victim was using
it to enter the motel. Defendant concedes that in State v.
Johnson, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2007), we held that a person uses “physical force” sufficient to support a conviction for robbery by “taking the victim’s property so quickly that resistance is futile.” However,
he contends that Johnson is plainly wrong under the test
established in State v. Civil, 

, 

 (2017). Defendant advances three arguments as to why
Johnson is plainly wrong: (1) it is not consistent with State
v. Hamilton, 

, 

 (2010); (2) it is not reconcilable with the plain text of the robbery statute; and (3) it
incorrectly allows a robbery conviction when physical force
was directed only at the property, not at the victim. The
arguments that defendant advances here are not “qualitatively new,” nor do they persuade us that Johnson is plainly
wrong under the “rigorous” standard established in Civil.
See Civil, 

.
        Affirmed.