State v. Hejazi

── State v. Hejazi ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Jacquot Category: General No. 418 May 13, 2026 617 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HAMID MICHAEL HEJAZI, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 23CR62787, 24CR04202; A183881 (Control), A183882 Jay A. McAlpin, Judge. Argued and submitted April 7, 2026. Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Oregon Public Defense Commission. Hamid Michael Hejazi filed the sup- plemental briefs pro se. Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. JACQUOT, J. Affirmed. 618 State v. Hejazi JACQUOT, J. In these consolidated appeals, defendant seeks reversal of judgments dismissing his appeals to the circuit court from his municipal court convictions for harassment. Because defendant’s assignments of error are unpreserved and he does not request plain error review, we affirm the trial court’s dismissals of defendant’s appeals. In 23CR62787 and 24CR04202, the City of Springfield (the city) charged defendant with telephonic harassment, ORS 166.065(1)(c).1 The Springfield Municipal Court record in each case reflects that defendant commit- ted harassment on two different dates by making telephonic threats to the mayor of Springfield. Defendant pleaded guilty in each case in the municipal court, and the munici- pal court imposed two years of probation in each case. Defendant appealed both cases to the circuit court. Under ORS 157.010,2 the city moved to dismiss the appeals because the circuit court does not have appellate jurisdiction over municipal court convictions arising from guilty pleas. The circuit court granted the city’s motion without holding a hearing after defendant failed to respond to the motion. Defendant argues that the circuit court erred in doing so, because defendant also had the right to a limited appeal pursuant to ORS 157.070.3 Defendant argues that if he had 1 As relevant here, ORS 166.065(1)(c) provides that a person commits harass- ment they intentionally: “(c) Subject[ ] another to alarm by conveying a telephonic * * * threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that person’s family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm.” 2 In effect at the time of defendant’s conduct, former ORS 157.010 (2025), repealed by Or Laws 2025, ch 268, § 35, provided: “In a criminal action in a justice court, except where the judgment is given on a plea of guilty, an appeal may be taken from a judgment of con- viction to the circuit court for the county in which the judgment is given, as prescribed in this chapter, and not otherwise.” “Municipal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with justice courts over misde- meanors committed in the city in which they sit, ORS 221.339(2), and serve as justice courts when they hear misdemeanor offenses.” State v. Steed, 340 Or App 352, 353 n 1, 571 P3d 168 (2025); City of Milton-Freewater v. Ashley, 214 Or App 526, 531, 166 P3d 587 (2007). 3 Former ORS 157.070 (2025), repealed by Or Laws 2025, ch 268, § 35 provided: Nonprecedential Memo Op: 349 Or App 617 (2026) 619 been given an opportunity to respond to the city’s mot