Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

City of Eugene v. Gannon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 15, 2018

CITY OF EUGENE, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL EDWARD GANNON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted March 16, 2017

          Lane County Circuit Court 15CR10709, 15CR10710, 15CR10711, 15CR10712 R. Curtis Conover, Judge.

          Brian Michaels argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

          Jens Schmidt argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C. and Ben Miller.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Wilson, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals his judgments of conviction for four counts of criminal trespass in the second degree. He assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the underlying trespass notice he received-which was issued after he was found sleeping in a locked building on the University of Oregon's campus-was unconstitutional because it violated his due process rights.

         Held:

         The trial court did not err. Because defendant did not identify any constitutionally protected interest that was infringed by the notice of trespass, the Court of Appeals cannot determine any process was due in depriving him of that interest.

         Affirmed.

         [294 Or.App. 820] ORTEGA, P. J.

         Defendant was charged with four counts of criminal trespass in the second degree in violation of Eugene City Code (ECC) 4.807.[1] He was found guilty on all counts in municipal court and appealed to the circuit court, where he was convicted of those crimes.[2] On appeal, defendant raises three assignments of error. However, we reject defendant's second assignment of error without written discussion, writing only to address his first and third assignments, in which he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal. Defendant received a notice of trespass after he was found sleeping in a locked University of Oregon (UO) building and, because he violated that notice, he received four citations for criminal trespass in the second degree, which resulted in the convictions at issue. He contends that the underlying notice was unlawful, as it did not provide due process to allow him to challenge its constitutionality and, as a result, the trial court should have granted his motions for judgment of acquittal. We conclude that, because defendant has not identified any constitutionally protected interest that was infringed by the notice of trespass, we cannot determine that any process was due in depriving him of that interest. Therefore, we affirm.

         In reviewing a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the city to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that it proved the elements of the crime. State v. Barnes, 232 Or.App. 70, 72, 220 P.3d 1195 (2009).

         Defendant was found asleep in a building on UO's main campus after it was closed and locked. An officer questioned defendant and, after concluding that he "had no authorized basis to be in the building at that time," issued a notice of trespass to defendant. The notice provided that defendant was excluded from campus buildings and any other property owned by UO (including streets, sidewalks, and parking lots) for 18 months, and that if he returned [294 Or.App. 821] without prior approval from the UO chief of police or a designee, "he would be treated as a trespasser." The notice also stated that he could appeal that status to UO's chief of police. Through an attorney, defendant wrote a letter to the chief challenging the constitutionality of the notice of trespass, but the chief denied his appeal "on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.