State v. Hernandez ( 2024 )

No. 349 May 30, 2024 763
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
CRUZ RIVERA HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Marion County Circuit Court
22CR10567; A180462
Jennifer K. Gardiner, Judge.
Submitted April 16, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Marc D. Brown, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Section B of the brief was prepared by defendant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, J.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Affirmed.
764 State v. Hernandez
LAGESEN, C. J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction
for murder in the second degree with a firearm, ORS 163.115;
ORS 161.610. His 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. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b).
The state filed an answering brief responding to the argu-
ments raised in Section B of the brief. Reviewing under
ORAP 5.90(3) for “arguably meritorious issues,” we affirm.1
In March 2022, defendant caused the death of his
intimate partner with a firearm. Defendant waived a jury
trial, and he pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree
with a firearm. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties,
the trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison with
an opportunity for parole after 25 years, and a 60-month
mandatory minimum term of incarceration, ORS 163.115(5);
ORS 161.610.
Having reviewed the record, including the trial court
file and the transcript of the hearings, and having reviewed
the Balfour brief, including the arguments in Section B of
the brief and the state’s response to those arguments, 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).