State v. Chilcote , 301 Or. App. 671 ( 2020 )

671
Argued and submitted February 12, 2019, affirmed January 2, 2020
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RONALD GENE CHILCOTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Marion County Circuit Court
14C44422, 16CR00251, 14C40062;
A164695 (Control), A164696, A164465
457 P3d 343
Rafael A. Caso, Judge pro tempore.
Eric Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the
cause for appellant. Also on the opening and reply brief
was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Ronald Gene
Chilcote filed the supplemental brief pro se.
Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.*
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
______________
* Egan, C. J., vice Hadlock, J. pro tempore.
672 State v. Chilcote
PER CURIAM
Defendant was charged with a total of nine counts
of theft, burglary, unauthorized use of a vehicle, fleeing or
attempting to elude a police officer, and reckless endanger-
ment. He was convicted of all charges after a bench trial.
On appeal of the resulting judgment, defendant raises 19
assignments of error, some of which are also addressed in a
pro se supplemental brief.
In his first assignment of error, defendant chal-
lenges the trial court’s grant of the state’s motion to con-
solidate three separate charging instruments for trial. It
was apparent at oral argument—which was devoted almost
entirely to this assignment of error—that the bench and
bar would benefit from clarification of the “same or simi-
lar character” basis for joinder or consolidation under ORS
132.560(1)(b)(A). Having recently addressed that issue in
State v. Garrett, 300 Or App 671, 455 P3d 979 (2019), and
State v. Gialloreto, 301 Or App 585, 457 P3d 1105 (2019),
however, we no longer see a need to write on it in this case.
We therefore reject defendant’s first assignment of error
without written discussion.
In his seventh assignment of error, defendant argues
that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment
of acquittal on the charge of reckless endangerment, ORS
163.195. Defendant was charged with reckless endanger-
ment for allegedly “unlawfully and recklessly creat[ing] a
substantial risk of serious physical injury to Sgt. Anthony
Moore.” At trial, the state put on evidence that defendant
took a tow truck without the owner’s permission and, after
being surrounded by law enforcement officers, drove the
truck toward Moore while trying to escape. Moore, believ-
ing that he could not get out of the way safely, shot twice at
defendant. The state put on fairly extensive evidence rel-
evant to the reckless endangerment count, including tes-
timony by Moore, testimony by other officers at the scene,
and multiple exhibits. Upon consideration, we conclude that
the evidence was sufficient for the charge to go to the jury
and, accordingly, reject defendant’s seventh assignment of
error. See State v. Hedgpeth, 365 Or 724, 730, 452 P3d 948
(2019) (“[O]ur standard for reviewing the denial of a motion
Cite as 301 Or App 671 (2020) 673
for judgment of acquittal involves viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the state to determine if the state
presented sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of
fact, making reasonable inferences, could find the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.)).
We reject defendant’s remaining assignments of error
without written discussion.
Affirmed.