Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2021

State v. Romero

Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided February 10, 2021

309 Or. App. 338; 481 P.3d 406

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. Krieger (Or. Ct. App. 2021)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Submitted March 31, 2020, affirmed February 10, 2021

STATE OF OREGON,

Plaintiff-Respondent, v.

JOHN WAYNE ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Linn County Circuit Court 16CR14234; A168238 481 P3d 406

Thomas McHill, Judge.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and James, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

Cite as 309 Or App 338 (2021) 339 PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty by jury verdict of one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine for consid- eration, ORS 475.890 (Count 1); unlawful delivery of meth- amphetamine involving more than 10 grams, ORS 475.890 (Count 2); and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894 (Count 3). The court merged the guilty verdicts on the first two counts, and entered convictions on Counts and 3. The jury was instructed that it need not be unan- imous, but was not polled.1 On appeal, defendant raises several assignments of error concerning pretrial and trial matters, including an argument that the trial court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unan- imous verdicts. We reject without discussion all of defen- dant’s arguments concerning trial except his argument that the court plainly erred in instructing the jury that it need not reach unanimous verdicts. Defendant contends that all verdicts must be reversed in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). We reject that argument for the reasons set forth in State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340, 478 P3d 509 (2020).

Affirmed.

1 Defendant asserts in his opening brief that the jury was not unanimous as to Count 2. However, neither the transcript nor the jury verdict form reflects that the jury was polled on that count or the other counts.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.