Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2021

State v. Sosa

State v. Sosa
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided May 5, 2021
311 Or. App. 218; 486 P.3d 68

State v. Sosa

Opinion

Submitted April 16; convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed May 5; petition for review denied August 26, 2021 (368 Or 514)

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN GABRIEL SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

Washington County Circuit Court 18CR77083; A171226 486 P3d 68

Beth L. Roberts, Judge.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM Convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite as 311 Or App 218 (2021) 219 PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdict of luring a minor, ORS 167.057 (Count 1), and attempted second-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.425 (Count 2). He was convicted by unanimous jury verdict of unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.250 (Count 3).

He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could reach nonunanimous verdicts in light of Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), which held that nonunanimous jury ver- dicts violate the Sixth Amendment. The state concedes that the nonunanimous verdicts must be reversed. We agree and accept that concession.

Defendant’s challenge to the jury’s unanimous ver- dict on the unlawful possession of a firearm count is fore- closed by State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 319, 478 P3d 515 (2020), in which the court concluded that nonunanimous jury instruction was not a structural error that categorically requires reversal in every case. When, as here, the jury’s verdict was unanimous despite the nonunanimous instruc- tion, such erroneous instruction was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” with respect to the unanimous verdict. Id. at 329.

Convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.