State v. Adams

340 Or. App. 265

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: A182731
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 392 April 30, 2025 265

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHERIE ALANE ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 22CN05346, 22CR49316; A182731 (Control), A182903

Monte S. Campbell, Judge. Submitted March 14, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emma Izaguirre, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed. 266 State v. Adams

EGAN, J. In this consolidated appeal, defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for nine counts of second-degree animal neglect, Case No. 22CR49316, and a judgment find- ing her in contempt of court for violating the conditions of her probation, Case No. 22CN05346. Her appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90(4) 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 Defendant was charged with ninety-nine counts of second-degree animal neglect. Defendant pleaded no contest to nine of those counts and was given a stipulated sentence of 60 months’ supervised probation, community service, and restitution. Defendant also pleaded no contest to contempt of court for a violation of a probation condition and was sen- tenced to 24 months of probation to run concurrently with the sentence in the underlying case. Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file and the transcript of the hearings, and having reviewed the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues. See ORS 138.105(5) (“The appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defen- dant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest[.]”). Affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel. See, e.g., State v. Daily, 335 Or App 198, 557 P3d 1153 (2024) (deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); State v. Goin, 334 Or App 497, 556 P3d 663 (2024) (same).