Court Opinion

ID: 9960947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 16:11:09.54041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:05.793492
License: Public Domain

64                      April 17, 2024             No. 236

           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                   STATE OF OREGON

                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                 CHAD VERN PUCKETT,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
                 Lane County Circuit Court
                   20CR66835; A178364

     Debra K. Vogt, Judge.
     Submitted March 14, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and David O. Ferry, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
     TOOKEY, P. J.
     Affirmed.
Cite as 332 Or App 64 (2024)                                               65

         TOOKEY, P. J.
         A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of first-
degree sodomy, ORS 163.405, and one count of first-degree
unlawful sexual penetration, ORS 163.411. On appeal, in a
single assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial
court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. We con-
clude that we have no authority to review that assignment
of error, and even if we did, we discern no error in the trial
court’s denial of the motion. We therefore affirm.
         Six days after the jury found defendant guilty, but
before sentencing, defendant moved for a new trial pursuant
to ORCP 64 B(1),1 arguing that there had been an irreg-
ularity in the proceedings. Defendant had taken antianx-
iety medication before the third day of his jury trial, and
he claimed that it had impaired his ability to remember
or understand the proceedings on that day. The trial court
denied the motion. The trial court expressed concern about
defendants creating “their own irregularity to try to justify
getting a new” trial, and it explained that defendant
   “did fine that day. [Defendant] talked to me, he answered
   my questions. He was aware of everything. He assured me
   that—don’t shake your head at me—you assured me on
   that day that you were fine, that you wanted to go forward.
   You answered questions appropriately. There was nothing
   about you on that day that I would note would have made
   you unfit to proceed. You clearly knew what was going
   on, you participated. I watched you participate with your
   attorney. You were still taking notes, you were still talking
   to your lawyer and assisting.”
         On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s
ruling, but we conclude that we have no authority to review it.
ORS 138.105(4)(a) provides that we have authority to review
“[t]he denial of a motion for new trial based on juror mis-
conduct or newly discovered evidence[.]” In State v. Sullens,
314 Or 436, 442-43, 839 P2d 708 (1992), the Supreme Court
concluded that the denial of a motion for a new trial in a
criminal case was reviewable on appeal only if the motion
was based on alleged juror misconduct or newly discovered
    1
      Under ORS 136.535(1), ORCP 64 B applies to and regulates new trials in
criminal actions. ORCP 64 B(1) provides in part that a new trial may be granted
when there is an “[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court[.]”
66                                           State v. Puckett

evidence. In State v. Alvarez-Vega, 240 Or App 616, 618-19,
251 P3d 199, rev den, 350 Or 297 (2011), relying on Sullens,
we determined that we had no authority to review the denial
of a motion for a new trial filed pursuant to ORCP 64 B(6),
in which the defendant had argued that the trial court com-
mitted an error of law in denying his motion for a continu-
ance on the first day of trial because he wished to retain a
new lawyer.
         Here, defendant moved for a new trial pursuant to
ORCP 64 B(1), arguing that there had been an irregular-
ity in the proceedings of the court because the antianxiety
medication that he had taken rendered him incompetent to
stand trial. But defendant did not argue below, and he does
not argue on appeal, that the motion was based on juror
misconduct under ORCP 64 B(2) or newly discovered evi-
dence under ORCP 64 B(4). As a result, pursuant to ORS
138.105(4)(a), we have no authority to review the denial of
defendant’s motion.
          Even if we had authority to review it, we discern
no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion because, on
the third day of trial, defendant assured the trial court that
he felt fine, that he was able to participate in the trial and
assist his attorney, and his testimony that day indicates that
he had no difficulty answering questions or understanding
the nature of the proceedings. We therefore affirm.
        Affirmed.