State v. Hamilton ( 2024 )

782 October 30, 2024 No. 781
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
JEFFERY ALLEN HAMILTON,
aka Jeffery Allan Hamilton,
Defendant-Appellant.
Marion County Circuit Court
20CR17708; A182637
Jennifer K. Gardiner, Judge.
Submitted September 13, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
Appellant filed a supplemental brief pro se.
Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived
appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
EGAN, J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 782 (2024) 783
EGAN, J.
Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation
and imposing the sentence that the parties agreed to if
probation was revoked. 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 does not contain a
Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). Defendant did file a supple-
mental brief, which we have considered. We affirm.1
In March 2022, defendant pleaded guilty to crimi-
nal mischief in the second degree, ORS 164.354; two counts
of unlawful use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135; and failure to
perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, ORS
811.705. Defendant was sentenced to 60 days in jail with
credit for time served and 36 months of supervised proba-
tion. The parties agreed that if probation was revoked, then
defendant would be sentenced to a total of 84 months in
prison. In September 2023, after a second probation revoca-
tion hearing, defendant admitted that he failed to report as
directed, which was a condition of his probation. The trial
court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to the
stipulated sentence of 84 months in prison.
Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file, the transcript of the hearings, the Balfour brief,
and defendant’s supplemental brief, and taking into account
our statutorily circumscribed authority to review, see ORS
138.105(9), we have identified no arguably meritorious
issues. See State v. Neill, 324 Or App 608, 609, 526 P3d 1221,
rev den, 371 Or 477 (2023) (“because defendant stipulated to
the probation revocation sentence, ORS 138.105(9) precludes
our review”).
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).