State v. Gilbert ( 2024 )

10 July 24, 2024 No. 506
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
PONY BOY GILBERT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Lane County Circuit Court
21CR39012; A179948
Karrie K. McIntyre, Judge.
Submitted June 14, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appel-
lant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 334 Or App 10 (2024) 11
LAGESEN, C. J.
Defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of first-
degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, one count of third-degree
sexual abuse, ORS 163.415, and three counts of second-
degree unlawful sexual penetration, ORS 163.408. The
trial court imposed a stipulated sentence of 240 months in
prison. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant
to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069(1991). The brief contains a Section B, in which defendant
argues, among other things, that his waiver of his right to a
speedy trial was not voluntary, that his pleas of guilty were
not voluntary, and that the trial court proceedings were
not open to the public. The state filed an answering brief
responding to those arguments. Reviewing under ORAP
5.90(3) for “arguably meritorious issues,” we affirm.1
Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file and the transcript of the hearings, and having
reviewed the Balfour brief, including defendant’s arguments
in Section B of the brief and the state’s response to those
arguments, and taking into account our statutorily circum-
scribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105, we have iden-
tified 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).