Peecher v. State of Oregon

342 Or. App. 328

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: A184289
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

328 July 30, 2025 No. 690

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

STEPHEN GERARD PEECHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant-Respondent. Clatsop County Circuit Court 23CV04600; A184289

Kirk C. Wintermute, Judge. Submitted June 13, 2025. 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. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 342 Or App 328 (2025) 329

EGAN, J. Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post- conviction relief. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant 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 Petitioner was convicted of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse. In the post-conviction court, peti- tioner argued that his convictions were a result of nonunan- imous verdicts. Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020). The post-conviction court made the factual finding, based on the transcript of the underlying proceedings, that the verdicts were unanimous, and denied relief. See Brock v. Wright, 98 Or App 323, 326, 778 P2d 999 (1989) (“In post-conviction proceedings, we are bound to uphold findings of fact if they are supported by evidence in the record.”). 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.