City of Eugene v. Hejazi

── City of Eugene v. Hejazi ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Tookey Category: General No. 398 May 13, 2026 409 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CITY OF EUGENE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Hamid Michael HEJAZI, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24CR16542, 24CR57085; A184491 (Control), A184509, A186553 Jay A. McAlpin, Judge. Argued and submitted April 15, 2026. Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the opening and reply briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Oregon Public Defense Commission. Hamid Hejazi filed the supplemental briefs pro se. Melissa J. Franz argued the cause for respondent. Also on the briefs was Travis Smith. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. TOOKEY, P. J. In Case No. 24CR16542, general judgment of dismissal reversed and remanded. In Case No. 24CR57085, general judgment of dismissal reversed and remanded. 410 City of Eugene v. Hejazi Cite as 349 Or App 409 (2026) 411 TOOKEY, P. J. Defendant seeks reversal of two circuit court judg- ments dismissing his appeals from municipal court convic- tions.1 In Case No. 24CR16542, the Lane County Circuit Court granted a motion filed by the City of Eugene (city) seeking dismissal of defendant’s appeal of his municipal court conviction for menacing in violation of Eugene City Code (ECC) 4.730. And in Case No. 24CR57085, the Lane County Circuit Court granted the city’s motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal of his municipal court conviction for dis- orderly conduct in violation of ECC 4.725(a). Defendant argues that dismissing the appeals before he was assigned an attorney to assist him in respond- ing to the city’s motions violated his right to counsel. For the reasons explained below, we agree with defendant that when the circuit court dismissed the appeals before defen- dant had been appointed an attorney, the circuit court vio- lated defendant’s right to counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution because that was a circum- stance where, without the assistance of counsel, defendant’s legal interests were at risk of prejudice. State v. Roberts, 374 Or 821, 849, 584 P3d 1217 (2026). We therefore reverse and remand the two cases to the circuit court.2 FACTS In February 2024, defendant was arrested for engaging in threatening behavior after he was asked to move the tent in which he was sleeping, and he was charged in Eugene Municipal Court with various municipal code violations, including menacing in violation of ECC 4.730. The municipal court appointed an attorney for defendant, and, about a month after the charges were filed, defendant 1 On June 5, 2024, we consolidated the appeals in case numbers A184491 and A184509 because appellant had filed two notices of appeal from the same decision. On April 23, 2026, by order, we consolidated the appeals in case num- bers A184491 and A186553 because they raise the same issue. 2 In 2025, the legislature enacted a significant overhaul of the statutes govern- ing appeals from justice courts and municipal courts. See Or Laws 2025, ch 268. The new statutes became operative on January 1, 2026. Id. § 56(b). The events at issue in these appeals occurred in 2024, and there is no indication that the new statutes were intended to apply retroactively. We offer no opinion on whether the outcome of these cases would have been the same under the new statutes. 412 City of Eugene v. Hejazi entered an Alford plea of guilty to one count of menacing and the other counts were dismissed.3 Defendant was sen- tenced to 28 days in jail and one year of probation. Defendant appea