State v. Brown

338 Or. App. 246

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: A183060
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

246 February 26, 2025 No. 155

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. SHAKEYA ANITA MARIE BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 22CR58470; A183060

Jodie A. Bureta, Judge. Submitted January 10, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Carla E. Edmondson, 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. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 246 (2025) 247

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after a conditional plea of guilty to one count of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540. Her 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 The state charged defendant with fleeing or attempt- ing to elude a police officer because she drove away after a traffic stop. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of her “conduct in response to an unlawful seizure and extension of a traffic stop.” The trial court denied the motion determin- ing that a trooper had probable cause to stop defendant, and that the trooper’s conduct during the stop was subjectively and objectively reasonable. Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty, and the trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated sentence of 18 months of bench probation. Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, and taking into account our statutorily circumscribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105(9), 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).