STATE v. RAMIREZ (2022)

Defendant was convicted, among other counts, of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, ORS 819.300. The trial court merged the verdicts on the two convictions, and on appeal defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal as to each. We affirm.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, we view the evidence—including all reasonable inferences and credibility determinations that may be drawn from the evidence–in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47, 63, 880 P.2d 431 (1994), cert. den., 514 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); State v. Simmons, 279 Or. App. 756, 759-60, 764, 379 P.3d 580, rev. den., 360 Or. 697, 388 P.3d 710 (2016). Our task is not to decide whether we believe a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—our task is to determine whether any reasonable factfinder, on this record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, could conclude that defendant was guilty. Cunningham, 320 Or. at 63, 880 P.2d 431.

Having reviewed the record here, with the applicable standard of review in mind, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM