explaining that the correct disposition in a declaratory judgment action is a declaration of the rights of the parties even if it is not the declaration sought by the plaintiff
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the correct disposition in a declaratory judgment action is a declaration of the rights of the parties even if it is not the declaration sought by the plaintiff
- noting that annexation under ORS 222.127 is “mandatory, so long as the conditions are met”
- rejecting various constitutional challenges to ORS 222.127
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
843
Argued and submitted March 23, 2018, reversed and remanded June 17, 2020
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AUDREY BETH CANNON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
15CR51118; A162360
464 P3d 1127
Henry Kantor, Judge.
Marc D. Brown, Deputy Defender, argued the cause for
appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief
Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause
for respondent. Also on the briefs were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Janis C. Puracal, Steven T. Wax, and Brittney R. Plesser
filed the briefs amicus curiae for Oregon Innocence Project.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Shorr, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded.
844 State v. Cannon
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary by
nonunanimous jury verdict. ORS 164.225. Defendant con-
tends that the trial court’s acceptance of a nonunanimous
verdict constitutes plain error under the Sixth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. In Ramos v. Louisiana,
___ US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the
Court concluded that nonunanimous jury verdicts violated
the Sixth Amendment. In State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 504,
464 P3d 1123 (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 fail-
ure to raise the error in the trial court did not weigh heavily
against correction of the error because the trial court would
not have been able to correct it under controlling law.
The state concedes that the trial court’s acceptance
of a nonunanimous verdict in this case constitutes plain
error. For the reasons set forth in Ulery, we exercise our dis-
cretion to correct the error in this case. Our disposition obvi-
ates the need to address defendant’s remaining arguments.
Reversed and remanded.