Submitted May 21; in Case No. 19CR37815, convictions on Counts 1 and 5 reversed and remanded, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed; in Case No. 19CN02709, affirmed June 16, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANDREW KENNETH SAMDAHL, Defendant-Appellant.

Lane County Circuit Court 19CR37815, 19CN02709; A172305 (Control), A172306 488 P3d 838

Debra E. Velure, Judge.

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 Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

PER CURIAM In Case No. 19CR37815, convictions on Counts 1 and 5 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; other- wise affirmed. In Case No. 19CN02709, affirmed.

458 State v. Samdahl PER CURIAM In the first of these consolidated cases, defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdicts of attempt- ing to elude (Count 1), and third-degree escape (Count 5). In the second of these consolidated cases, the trial court found defendant in punitive contempt based on two violations of a court order and placed him on probation. On appeal, defen- dant asserts that the trial court plainly erred in receiving nonunanimous verdicts on Counts 1 and 5 in the first case.

The state concedes that the court erred in that respect. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), (holding that nonunanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses violate the Sixth Amendment); State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 501, 464 P3d 1123 (2020) (holding that a trial court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict consti- tutes plain error). We agree and, for the reasons stated in Ulery, id. at 504, reverse and remand as to the convictions based on nonunanimous verdicts. For the reasons expressed in State v. Kincheloe, 367 Or 335, 478 P3d 507 (2020), we reject defendant’s challenge with respect to the counts receiving unanimous jury verdicts. Defendant also chal- lenges the trial court’s imposition of a special condition of probation in the contempt case; we reject defendant’s argu- ment on that issue without discussion.

In Case No. 19CR37815, convictions on Counts 1 and 5 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. In Case No. 19CN02709, affirmed.