Almanza-Garcia v. Miller

337 Or. App. 103

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: December 26, 2024
• Docket: A182843
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 938 December 26, 2024 103

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

FRANCISCO ALMANZA-GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jamie MILLER, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent. Malheur County Circuit Court 20CV36944; A182843

Erin K. Landis, Judge. Submitted November 8, 2024. Jason Weber and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for appellant. Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appear- ance for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed. 104 Almanza-Garcia v. Miller

EGAN, J. Petitioner appeals a judgment denying him post- conviction relief. His appointed counsel filed a brief pur- suant 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). We affirm.1 In 2007, after a bench trial, petitioner was con- victed of two counts of first-degree rape and one count of first-degree sodomy. We reversed and remanded. State v. Almanza-Garcia, 242 Or App 350, 351, 255 P3d 613 (2011). In 2012, after a second trial, a jury found petitioner guilty of the same charges. The trial court sentenced peti- tioner to 900 months in prison. In the post-conviction court, relying on Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020), petitioner argued, among other things, that his jury instructions allowed for nonunanimous verdicts. However, the verdicts in petitioner’s case were unanimous. For that reason, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. Having reviewed the record, including the post-conviction court file and the transcript of the hearings, and having reviewed the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues. 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).