State v. Schriner

Under ORS 809.240 and ORS 809.409(4), a trial court may consider the factual basis of the conviction, not just the statutory elements of the offense, in determining whether a license revocation is required.

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to revoke Joseph Schriner’s driver’s license following his conviction for unlawful use of a vehicle (UUV). Schriner had admitted to knowingly operating a stolen motorcycle, a felony under ORS 164.135. On appeal, he argued that UUV does not necessarily require the “operation of a motor vehicle” as a statutory element, and therefore, revocation under ORS 809.409(4) was improper.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that under ORS 809.240 and ORS 809.409(4), a trial court may consider the factual basis of the conviction, not just the statutory elements of the offense, in determining whether a license revocation is required. Although UUV can be committed in ways that don’t involve operating a motor vehicle, Schriner’s conviction stemmed from conduct that did, such as operating a stolen motorcycle. The Court found this sufficient to trigger mandatory license revocation under the statutory scheme. Thus, the Court affirmed.