State v. Chavez-Echeverria
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
868 June 17, 2020 No. 308 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JESSIE CHAVEZ-ECHEVERRIA, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 16CR32732, C152304CR; A164920 (Control), A164922 Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Argued and submitted February 12, 2019. Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.* PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. ______________ * DeVore, J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore. Cite as 304 Or App 868 (2020) 869 PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted by nonunanimous jury verdicts of attempted murder, ORS 163.155 and ORS 161.405, first-degree assault, ORS 163.185, unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220, and third-degree assault, ORS 163.165. On appeal, defendant makes numerous arguments concerning alleged errors that occurred during trial and at sentencing. Defendant also argues that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts constitutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, ___ L Ed 2d ___ (2020), the Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504, ___ P3d ___ (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error and exercised discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts on each of the convictions in this case constitutes plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obviates the need to address defendant’s remaining arguments. Reversed and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
