Opinion
A181211
06-26-2024
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AARON BRANDER CLUNES, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services fled the brief for appellant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted May 13, 2024.
Columbia County Circuit Court 22CR08805; A181211 Denise E. Keppinger, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services fled the brief for appellant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
EGAN, J.
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm with a firearm, ORS 161.610, ORS 166.270(1), and one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to 90 months in prison. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or. 434, 814 P.2d 1069 (1991). The brief contains a Section B, in which defendant argues that there was a violation of his speedy trial rights, he challenges the accuracy of the trial court transcripts, and he argues that he was not timely arraigned. The state filed an answering brief responding to those arguments. Reviewing under ORAP 5.90(3) for "arguably meritorious issues," we affirm.
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 P.3d 1098 (2021) (deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v. Nooth, 254 Or.App. 402. 295 P.3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or. 747 (2013) (same).
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 circumscribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.
Affirmed.