STATE v. TRAVERS (2019)

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 P.3d 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 concession, and exercise our discretion to correct the error. See State v. Cuenca-Juarez, 284 Or. App. 551, 552, 391 P.3d 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 P.3d 597 (2012), rev. den., 353 Or. 209, 297 P.3d 481 (2013) (taking a similar approach).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

PER CURIAM