State v. Eggleston
| Citation | 302 Or.App. 797,462 P.3d 314 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | A164893 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kevin Ray EGGLESTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.
Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief was Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge.
Defendant challenges his judgment of conviction for first-degree assault. After a jury found three aggravating factors, the trial court relied on all three to impose an upward durational departure sentence without distinguishing among the factors. In his eighth assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a departure sentence based on the third aggravating factor—that defendant committed the current crime "while another criminal matter was pending."1 The state concedes that the evidence was insufficient for the court to find "substantial and compelling reasons" to depart on that factor. See ORS 137.671 (); OAR 213-008-0001 (same). We agree and accept the state’s concession.
Our case in State v. Vaughan-France , 279 Or. App. 305, 379 P.3d 766, rev. den. , 360 Or. 697, 388 P.3d 711 (2016) controls here. In that case, we accepted a state concession that the trial court had erred in imposing a departure sentence based on an active out-of-state arrest warrant. We explained that "the existence of an unserved arrest warrant, standing alone, is [not] a ‘substantial and compelling reason’ for un upward departure" because an arrest warrant is not an adjudication. Id. at 321-22, 379 P.3d 766. We further explained that, without some evidence that the defendant was aware of the pending arrest warrant, "it would not be accurate to state that [the] defendant engaged in any misconduct while aware that he was facing potential criminal liability." Id. at 322, 379 P.3d 766.
In this case, to prove the third aggravating factor, the state presented evidence that (1) six months before the incident in this case, a complaint was filed in the Eugene Municipal Court charging defendant with harassment; (2) one month after the incident date in this case, defendant had failed to appear at his scheduled court appearance on the harassment charge; and (3) as a result of the failure to appear on the harassment charge, an arrest warrant issued on that same day. For the same reasons expressed in Vaughan-France , that evidence was insufficient for the court to find "substantial and...
To continue reading
Request your trial