State v. Gillett
This text of 343 Or. App. 147 (State v. Gillett) 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.
Opinion
No. 779 August 27, 2025 147
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. MICHAEL BREWSTER LEE GILLETT, Defendant-Appellant. Malheur County Circuit Court 24CR28162; A185867
Lung S. Hung, Judge. Submitted July 11, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Matthew Blythe, 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. 148 State v. Gillett
EGAN, J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and menacing constituting domestic violence. 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 A grand jury indicted defendant for seven offenses. Defendant pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a fire- arm and menacing constituting domestic violence, and the trial court dismissed the remaining counts on the state’s motion. The parties stipulated to a downward departure to five years’ supervised probation and additional provisions concerning sentencing. 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. 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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
343 Or. App. 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gillett-orctapp-2025.