State v. Fitzpatrick

338 Or. App. 232

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: A182978
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

232 February 26, 2025 No. 148

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Defendant-Appellant. Union County Circuit Court 23CN03102, 23CN03123; A182978 (Control), A182980

Thomas B. Powers, Judge. Submitted January 10, 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. LAGESEN, C. J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 232 (2025) 233

LAGESEN, C. J. In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenges two judgments of contempt. His 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 admitted to two counts of contempt of court in Case No. 23CN03102, and he admitted to one count of contempt of court in Case No. 23CN03123. In Case No. 23CN03102, the trial court imposed a sentence of 20 days in jail on Count 1 and a sentence of discharge on Count 2. In Case No. 23CN03123, the trial court imposed a sentence of 20 days in jail. Having reviewed the record, including the trial court files in the two cases, 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. 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).