State v. Travers , 300 Or. App. 641 ( 2019 )

641
Argued and submitted October 16; reversed and remanded for resentencing,
otherwise affirmed November 20, 2019
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROSHAWN RONDELL AUSTIN TRAVERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
16CR37254; A166139
452 P3d 1083
Janelle F. Wipper, Judge.
Lindsey Burrows argued the cause and filed the reply
and supplemental briefs for appellant. Also on the opening
brief was O’Connor Weber LLC.
Susan G. Howe, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the briefs were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise
affirmed.
642 State v. Travers
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
murder, attempted aggravated murder, and misdemeanor
unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant
raises six assignments of error. We reject defendant’s first
two assignments of error without discussion, and we reject
his supplemental assignments of error because they raise
claims regarding jury unanimity that are foreclosed by our
case law. See State v. Weltch, 297 Or App 409, 410, 439 P3d
1047 (2019).
In his third assignment of error, defendant argues
that the trial court plainly erred in imposing fines on
merged Counts 3, 4, and 5. The state concedes that the trial
court erred in imposing separate fines on merged Counts
3, 4, and 5 and that we should exercise our discretion to
correct the error. We agree with the state, accept its con-
cession, and exercise our discretion to correct the error. See
State v. Cuenca-Juarez, 284 Or App 551, 552, 391 P3d 998
(2017) (accepting state’s concession that trial court plainly
erred by “imposing a fine on counts that merged into other
convictions”).
In his fourth assignment of error, defendant argues
that the trial court plainly erred in imposing a $200 fine on
Count 6. In view of our decision to remand on defendant’s
third assignment of error, we do not address defendant’s
fourth assignment of error because the trial court will have
an opportunity to address on remand whether that is the
fine it intended to impose on Count 6. See, e.g., State v. Jay,
251 Or App 752, 753 n 1, 284 P3d 597 (2012), rev den, 353 Or
209 (2013) (taking a similar approach).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise
affirmed.