State v. Mullin

No. 36                    October 24, 2024                          809


             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
                   STATE OF OREGON

                  STATE OF OREGON,
                   Petitioner on Review,
                             v.
              JOHN HATCHMAN MULLIN IV,
                  Respondent on Review.
         (CC 20CR36687) (CA A174750) (SC S070420)

   En Banc
   On review from the Court of Appeals.*
   Argued and submitted May 9, 2024.
   Colm Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued
the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review. Also
on the briefs were Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General, and
Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
   Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public
Defense Commission, Salem, argued the cause and filed
the briefs for respondent on review. Also on the briefs was
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender.
   PER CURIAM
   The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part
and vacated in part, and the case is remanded to the Court of
Appeals for further consideration in light of State v. Eggers,

, ___ P3d ___ (October 24, 2024).




______________
   * Appeal from Lane County Circuit Court,Charles D. Carlson, Judge. 

 (2023) (nonprecedential memorandum opinion).
810                          State v. Mullin

                                  State v. Eggers


                         Eggers
                        Held




      State v. Eggers
Cite as 

 (2024)                                                       811

           PER CURIAM
         This criminal case presents the same issue that we
resolved today in State v. Eggers, 

, ___ P3d ___
(October 24, 2024), involving whether the misdemeanor crime
of harassment that involves subjecting another person to
offensive physical contact, ORS 166.065(1)(a)(A), constitutes
a “qualifying misdemeanor” under the unlawful possession
of a firearm statute, ORS 166.255. The Court of Appeals in
this case concluded that the trial court had erred in imposing the firearms prohibition for defendant’s harassment conviction, citing its own decision in Eggers that had concluded
that harassment was not a “qualifying misdemeanor.” State
v. Mullin, 

 (2023) (nonprecedential
memorandum opinion) (citing State v. Eggers, 

, 

 (2023)). Today, however, we reversed
the Court of Appeals decision in Eggers, concluding instead
that harassment is a qualifying misdemeanor under ORS
166.255. Eggers, 372 Or at 808. We therefore vacate the
decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, in part, and
remand to that court for further consideration.1
        The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in
part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded to the
Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of State v.
Eggers, 

, ___ P3d ___ (October 24, 2024).




    1
       Defendant raised an additional assignment of error in the Court of Appeals
that is not at issue before us on review. In the Court of Appeals, defendant argued
that his conviction for menacing under ORS 163.190 was not a “qualifying misdemeanor” under ORS 166.255. State v. Mullin, 

 (2023) (nonprecedential memorandum opinion). The state conceded that menacing was not a
qualifying misdemeanor, and the Court of Appeals accepted that concession. 

In the state’s petition for review before this court, the state did not challenge that
holding. Accordingly, we affirm that part of the Court of Appeals decision.