State v. Garcia-Rocio ( 2024 )

788 October 30, 2024 No. 784
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CRESENCIO GARCIA-ROCIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
C122303CR; A184122
Rebecca D. Guptill, Judge.
Submitted September 13, 2024.
Frances J. Gray filed the brief for appellant.
Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived
appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
EGAN, J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 788 (2024) 789
EGAN, J.
Defendant appeals an amended judgment of convic-
tion. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069(1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP
5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1
After a jury trial in 2013, defendant was found
guilty of multiple sex crimes, but the verdicts on many of
the counts were nonunanimous. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 590
US 83, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), the United
States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment to
the United States Constitution requires that a jury reach a
unanimous guilty verdict to convict a defendant of a crime.
Pursuant to Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 607, 523 P3d
86 (2022), which held that Ramos applies retroactively, the
post-conviction court entered a stipulated general judgment
vacating the convictions that were based on nonunanimous
verdicts. On remand, the trial court entered a judgment of
conviction for three counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The
trial court sentenced defendant to 180 months in prison and
10 years of post-prison supervision. The trial court subse-
quently amended the judgment to clarify that defendant
would receive credit for time served.
Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file, the post-conviction court file, the transcript of the
hearings, and the Balfour brief, we have identified no argu-
ably meritorious issues.
Affirmed.
1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding
matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.
Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).