Petrjanos v. Thrasher

Opinion

No. 829 September 2, 2026 643

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

TERRI LYNN PETRJANOS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Charlotte THRASHER,

Superintendent,

Coffee Creek Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.

Washington County Circuit Court 20CV19001; A188291

Patricia A. Sullivan, Senior Judge. Submitted July 10, 2026. Margaret Huntington and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for appellant.

Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* LAGESEN, C. J. Affirmed.

______________

* Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b).

644 Petrjanos v. Thrasher

LAGESEN, C. 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.

Petitioner was charged in five cases in 2017; those charges included first- and second-degree theft, identity theft, negotiating a bad check, contempt of court, first-degree forgery, and first-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. Petitioner entered into a global plea agreement in which she pled guilty to five charges. Petitioner was sentenced to a total of 39 months’ incarceration and ordered to pay restitution totaling $7,782.13.

In the post-conviction court, petitioner argued that her pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary as a result of counsel’s ineffective assistance. She argued further that she would not have entered the pleas had counsel adequately advised her regarding restitution. After a trial at which petitioner and trial counsel testified, the post- conviction court found that petitioner’s testimony was not credible regarding her trial counsel, that she could not show prejudice regarding the amount of restitution, and denied relief.

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. 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.”); see also Newmann v. Highberger, 330 Or App 229, 234, 543 P3d 172, rev den, 372 Or 588 (2024) (“The post-conviction court’s finding on petitioner ’s credibility binds us on appeal * * *.”).

Affirmed.