- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 02-18-2021
- Case #: A167302
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Powers, J. for the Court; Lagesen, P.J.; & Egan, C.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was resentenced on six counts of promoting prostitution. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s calculation of his criminal history, imposition of an aggregate sentence that violated the 200 percent rule, failure to merge the guilty verdicts, and failure to consider Defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. On appeal, Defendant argued that his convictions were nonunanimous and violated the Sixth Amendment. In response, the State argued that principles "law of the case" and "limited scope of remand" prohibit Defendant, following a remand only for resentencing, to challenge the validity of his convictions on previously rejected grounds. “All convictions for serious offenses that were based on nonunanimous verdicts involved constitutional error - a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to jury unanimity.” State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or. 292, 295 (2020). The Court held that they have the discretion to review Defendant’s conviction because the law of the case does not preclude them from considering Defendant’s assignment of error based on the significant change in law as a result of Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020). Reversed.