State v. Wiley ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • 456                November 27, 2024              No. 850
    This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
    SARAH TERESA WILEY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Coos County Circuit Court
    22CN05789; A182426
    Andrew E. Combs, Judge.
    Submitted October 11, 2024.
    Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
    Section, and Joel Duran, 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    Nonprecedential Memo Op: 
    336 Or App 456
     (2024)                            457
    LAGESEN, C. J.
    Defendant appeals an amended judgment of con-
    tempt. Her 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
    After violating a restraining order by contacting the
    protected party on two separate occasions, defendant admit-
    ted to four counts of contempt and entered a deferred sen-
    tencing program. About nine months later, the trial court
    revoked defendant’s deferred sentence because she failed to
    attend a required program. The trial court entered a judg-
    ment finding defendant in contempt on four counts of violat-
    ing the restraining order. The trial court later entered an
    amended judgment merging the findings of contempt on two
    of the four counts and sentencing defendant to 18 months of
    bench probation.
    Having reviewed the record, including the trial
    court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour
    brief, 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).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A182426

Judges: Lagesen

Filed Date: 11/27/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/27/2024