State v. Meyer, 496 P.3d 1117

Background

Defendant Dustin D. Meyer was convicted by a unanimous jury of unlawful possession of methamphetamine (ORS 475.894) in Washington County Circuit Court.
He appealed, raising six assignments of error: (1) lack of jurisdiction because his waiver of a preliminary hearing was not knowing; (2) unlawful extension of a traffic stop and failure to suppress evidence; (3) erroneous jury instruction permitting nonunanimous verdicts; (4) imposition of $650 in court‑appointed attorney fees without a finding on ability to pay; (5) imposition of a $200 fine without considering financial circumstances; (6) probation condition allowing warrantless searches without "reasonable grounds."
The court of appeals issued a per curiam opinion: affirmed convictions except it reversed the attorney‑fee award, dismissed as moot the probation‑condition challenge, and rejected or declined relief on the other claims.
The court applied the Oregon Supreme Court’s later holding in State v. Keys (Keys II) that an unpreserved claim that a preliminary‑hearing waiver was not knowing is subject to ordinary plain‑error review (not a jurisdictional error excusing preservation).
The court found the nonunanimous‑verdict instruction was error but harmless because the verdict was unanimous.
The court concluded the $650 attorney‑fee order was plain error and, in the exercise of discretion, reversed it for lack of an adequate record on defendant’s ability to pay; the $200 fine claim was rejected under controlling precedent; and the probation search‑condition error was moot because probation had ended.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Meyer’s Argument	Held
1. Jurisdiction: Was waiver of preliminary hearing knowing?	Keys I was wrong; absence of knowing waiver does not deprive court of jurisdiction.	Waiver not knowing; jurisdictional defect so preservation excused.	Applying Keys II, preservation required; no plain error shown; claim rejected.
2. Suppression: Was traffic stop unlawfully extended so evidence must be suppressed?	No suppression motion below; fact‑intensive issues undo plain‑error relief.	Stop unlawfully extended, so methamphetamine should be suppressed.	Unpreserved; not plain; claim rejected.
3. Jury instruction: Court instructed nonunanimous verdicts permitted; reversible?	Instruction error but state notes verdict was unanimous.	Instruction violated unanimity requirement.	Instruction erroneous but harmless because verdict unanimous; conviction stands.
4. Court‑appointed attorney fees: $650 ordered without finding ability to pay; reversible?	Comparable cases (Baco) counsel against reversal where probation allows work.	No record showing ability to pay; plain error; ask appellate court to correct.	Plain error found; appellate court exercised discretion to reverse the $650 fee.
5. $200 fine without consideration of finances: Was imposition unlawful?	Precedent rejects this argument.	Court failed to consider financial circumstances.	Rejected under controlling precedent (no relief).
6. Probation search condition lacking "reasonable grounds": Valid?	State concedes condition invalid under Schwab.	Condition invalid; request reversal.	Meritorious but moot because probation ended; dismissed as moot.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Keys, 302 Or App 514 (discussed waiver of preliminary hearing; Keys I)
State v. Keys, 368 Or 171 (Oregon Supreme Court holding that absence of a knowing waiver is not jurisdictional; Keys II)
State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292 (harmlessness when verdict was unanimous despite erroneous instruction)
State v. Schwab, 95 Or App 593 (probation search condition invalid without reasonable‑grounds requirement)
State v. Guzman‑Vera, 305 Or App 161 (exercise of appellate discretion to correct attorney‑fee error)
State v. Baco, 262 Or App 169 (declining to correct attorney‑fee award on plain‑error review in a probation case)
State v. Eubanks, 296 Or App 150 (attorney‑fee correction principles cited for discretionary relief)
State v. Shepherd, 302 Or App 118 (rejecting challenge to fine imposed without express financial‑circumstances finding)