State v. Doan

344 Or. App. 573
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedOctober 29, 2025
DocketA185110
StatusUnpublished

This text of 344 Or. App. 573 (State v. Doan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Doan, 344 Or. App. 573 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

No. 943 October 29, 2025 573

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. QUANG MINH DOAN, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 22CR61706; A185110

Ulanda L. Watkins, Judge. Submitted September 12, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance of respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Affirmed. 574 State v. Doan

LAGESEN, C. J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated first-degree theft. 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 Defendant was indicted on one count of aggravated first-degree theft, ORS 164.057, and one count of first-degree theft, ORS 164.055, after police searched his residence and found over $10,000 in stolen goods. Defendant pleaded guilty to the aggravated first-degree theft charge, and the state agreed to dismissal of the first-degree theft charge. Based on defendant’s criminal history, the trial court sentenced defendant to 28 months in prison. 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, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Balfour
814 P.2d 1069 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
344 Or. App. 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-doan-orctapp-2025.