Opinion
A180901 A180902
10-30-2024
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ELDON MARION BROWNING III, aka Eldon Marion Browning, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Chief Deputy Defender, fled the brief for appellant. Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance 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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 September 13, 2024
Umatilla County Circuit Court 21CR40685, 22CR22173; Christopher R. Brauer, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Chief Deputy Defender, fled the brief for appellant.
Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
EGAN, J.
In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenges two judgments revoking probation. 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 does not contain a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). 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).
In Case No. 21CR40685, defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree theft. In Case No. 22CR22173, defendant also pleaded guilty to first-degree theft. In both cases, the trial court sentenced defendant to probation and defendant was admitted to drug court. However, defendant was terminated from the program. Defendant admitted he was out of compliance with the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked probation in Case No. 22CR22173 and sentenced defendant to 13 months in prison. The trial court revoked probation in Case No. 21CR40685 and imposed a concurrent sentence of 180 days in jail.
Having reviewed the record, including the trial court files in the two cases, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, and taking into account our statutorily circumscribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.
Affirmed.