Opinion
A180203
10-30-2024
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT C. SHELBY, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender fled the opening brief for appellant. Section B of the brief and the reply brief was prepared by appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, 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This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 September 13, 2024
Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CR20915; Thomas M. Ryan, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender fled the opening brief for appellant. Section B of the brief and the reply brief was prepared by appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
Affirmed.
LAGESEN, C. J.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including first-degree rape, ORS 163.375; first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427; strangulation, ORS 163.187; fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160; and first-degree sodomy, ORS 163.405. He was sentenced to 830 months in prison.
Defendant appealed, and we reversed on five counts and on a sentence-enhancement factor due to lack of jury unanimity. State v. Shelby, 317 Or.App. 647, 648-49, 505 P.3d 482 (2022). We also reversed and remanded for merger of two counts. Id. On remand, the trial court dismissed the five counts that had nonunanimous verdicts, and the state did not pursue the sentence enhancement factor. After a resentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 721 months in prison.
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 contains a Section B, in which defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on convictions for first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy. The state filed an answering brief responding to defendant's 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 having also considered the reply brief and letters from defendant, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.
Affirmed.