In this criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of its decision in State v. Keys, 368 Or. 171, 489 P.3d 83 (2021) (Keys II). State v. Granberg, 306 Or. App. 86, 473 P.3d 560 (2020), vacd and remd for recons, 368 Or. 513, 493 P.3d 503 (2021). In Keys II, the court concluded that a defective waiver of the right to a preliminary hearing does not deprive a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. 368 Or. at 203, 489 P.3d 83. The court then remanded that case to us with instructions to consider whether we should exercise our discretion to reach the validity of the defendants waiver under the plain-error doctrine. Id. at 205, 489 P.3d 83. This case presents the same issue. On remand, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred in entering a judgment of conviction, despite his stand-in counsel unilaterally waiving his right to a preliminary hearing. For the reasons explained in our recent decision in State v. Keys, 315 Or. App. 603, ––– P.3d –––– (2021) (Keys III), we conclude that the trial court did not commit plain error.
Having resolved the jurisdictional issue, we turn to defendants challenge to the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence, which we did not reach given our earlier disposition. See Granberg, 306 Or. App. at 87 n. 1, 473 P.3d 560. After reviewing the parties arguments on appeal and the record, we conclude that, because the seizure was justified by reasonable suspicion, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reject defendants assignment of error without further discussion.
Afftrmed.
PER CURIAM