# State v. Cannon > Court of Appeals of Oregon · June 17, 2020 · 304 Or. App. 843 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10600150 ## Case - **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon - **Decided:** June 17, 2020 - **Citations:** 304 Or. App. 843; 464 P.3d 1127 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10600150 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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 ## Opinion text 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10600150. Public record. Not legal advice.