State v. Perez-Cardenas

Reconsideration of a claim may be sought when “there has been a change in the statutes or case law since the decision of the Court of Appeals.” ORAP 6.25(1)(c).

Defendant appealed a conviction that was subsequently remanded for resentencing but otherwise affirmed and for which review by the Supreme Court was denied. State v. Perez-Cardenas, 296 Or. App. 881, 440 P.3d 121, rev den, 365 Or. 533 (2019). Defendant was granted leave in order to file a supplemental brief that assigned error to his non-unanimous jury verdicts. The State conceded that the Court reached plain error and Defendant should be afforded a new trial. Defendant moved that the State’s concession should be accepted. Reconsideration of a claim may be sought when “there has been a change in the statutes or case law since the decision of the Court of Appeals.” ORAP 6.25(1)(c). The Court held that there was plain error when Defendant’s non-unanimous verdicts were upheld because The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos found non-unanimous verdicts to be a violation of Sixth Amendment rights. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; reversed and remanded.