343 ORAPP 145 - Mullings v. Pedro

No. 778               August 27, 2025                145

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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

                TOMMY LEE MULLINGS,
                   Petitioner-Appellant,
                             v.
                      David PEDRO,
                     Superintendent,
          Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution,
                  Defendant-Respondent.
              Umatilla County Circuit Court
                   21CV15374; A185178

  J. Burdette Pratt, Senior Judge.
  Submitted July 11, 2025.
  Jason Weber and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for
appellant.
  Erin Galli, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  EGAN, J.
  Affirmed.
146                                                    Mullings v. Pedro

           EGAN, J.
         Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post-conviction relief. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour,

311 Or 434

814 P2d 1069

(1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP
5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1
        Petitioner was convicted in 2012 of Sodomy in the
First Degree (Counts 1-4), Unlawful Sexual Penetration
in the First Degree (Counts 5-6), and Sexual Abuse in the
First Degree (Counts 7-10) and sentenced to a total of 600
months in prison.
         In the post-conviction court, relying on Ramos
v. Louisiana,

590 US 83

140 S Ct 1390

206 L Ed 2d 583

(2020), petitioner argued that his convictions were obtained
by nonunanimous jury verdicts. He argued that there was
more than a mere possibility that he was convicted of one or
more counts by a nonunanimous verdict, offering statistical evidence showing that, where the record reflected a jury
poll, 65.5% of Oregon felony cases included a nonunanimous
verdict on at least one count in 2007 and 2008. The post-conviction court determined that petitioner did not provide
dispositive evidence that one or more of the convictions in
his case resulted from nonunanimous verdicts and denied
relief. Mandell v. Miller,

326 Or App 807, 811

533 P3d 815

,
rev den,

371 Or 476

 (2023) (“[P]ost-conviction petitioners
cannot prove that a Ramos violation was consequential in
their case when the record does not indicate whether the
jury that convicted them was, in fact, nonunanimous, and
are therefore not entitled to relief.”).
         Having reviewed the record, including the post-conviction court file and the transcript of the hearings, and
having reviewed the Balfour brief, we have identified no
arguably meritorious issues.
           Affirmed.



   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.