Opinion
A182106
10-30-2024
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HAYLEY LADALE PETTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emma McDermott, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, 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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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
Lincoln County Circuit Court 19CR04414; Sheryl Bachart, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emma McDermott, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, fled the brief for appellant.
Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
EGAN, J.
Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation. Defendant's 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 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree assault (Count 6) and prostitution (Count 14), and the trial court placed defendant on probation. In July 2023, the trial court found defendant in violation of the terms of her probation for failing to report as directed. Defendant admitted the violation. The trial court revoked probation on Count 6 and sentenced defendant to 180 days in jail, with credit for time served, and two years of post-prison supervision. On Count 14, the trial court reinstated probation and extended it to April 2027.
Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, and taking into account our statutorily circumscribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105(5), we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.
Affirmed.