158

On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed March 26, 2020; reconsideration allowed, former opinion (

,

) modified and adhered to as modified February 3, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANTHONY MORGAN MAILMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Union County Circuit Court M21794; A162173

Russell B. West, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erin J. Snyder Severe, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge. PER CURIAM Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified. Cite as

(2021) 159

PER CURIAM Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Mailman,

,

(2020). In our original opinion, we neglected to rule on the assignments of error raised in defendant’s supplemen- tal brief, wherein defendant challenged the trial court’s instruction that the jury could reach a nonunanimous ver- dict. Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration, asking us to address his supplemental assignments of error. We held our decision pending resolution of Ramos v. Louisiana,

,

,

(2020), as well as cases subsequently taken under advisement by the Oregon Supreme Court that presented Ramos issues. Those cases have now issued, and one of them, State v. Dilallo,

,

(2020), is controlling. At trial, defendant did not object to the instruction, nor was the jury polled. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s unpreserved argument in light of Dilallo. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.