State v. Thompson (A181132) ( 2024 )

14 July 24, 2024 No. 508
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY JOSEPH THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Yamhill County Circuit Court
23CR06424, 21CN05720, 21CR38690, 21CR58821;
A181132 (Control), A181320, A181321, A181322
Ladd J. Wiles, Judge. (Case No. 23CR06424-Second
Amended Judgment entered March 28, 2023)
Jennifer K. Chapman, Judge. (Case No. 21CN05720,
Judgment entered April 14, 2023; Case No. 21CR38690,
Judgment entered April 13, 2023; Case No. 21CR58821,
Judgment entered April 13, 2023)
Submitted June 14, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Bruce A. Myers, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived
appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge and Egan, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 334 Or App 14 (2024) 15
LAGESEN, C. J.
In this consolidated appeal, defendant appeals a
judgment of conviction and three probation violation judg-
ments. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP
5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991).
The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b).
We affirm.1
In March 2023, defendant pleaded guilty to con-
spiracy to commit theft in the first degree, ORS 161.450,
and violating a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750. See
Case No. 23CR06424. The trial court placed defendant on
supervised probation for 24 months. However, defendant
subsequently admitted to three probation violations, and he
was sentenced to 15 days in jail for each of the violations,
to run consecutively, with early release for inpatient treat-
ment at the discretion of the probation officer. See Case Nos.
21CN05720, 21CR38690, and 21CR58821.
Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour
brief, and taking into account our statutorily circumscribed
authority to review, see ORS 138.105, we have identified no
arguably meritorious issues.
Affirmed.
1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding
matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.
Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).