State v. Gilligan

343 Or. App. 143
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedAugust 27, 2025
DocketA184732
StatusUnpublished

This text of 343 Or. App. 143 (State v. Gilligan) 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. Gilligan, 343 Or. App. 143 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

No. 777 August 27, 2025 143

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 LOWELL GILLIGAN, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24CR28321; A184732

Kamala H. Shugar, Judge. Submitted July 11, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and David O. Ferry, 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. 144 State v. Gilligan

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354. 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 In June 2024, the state charged defendant by information with one count of second-degree criminal mis- chief, and the trial court appointed counsel for defendant at arraignment. A few weeks later, defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for dismissal of a separate contempt case for violating a restraining order obtained by a different victim. The court convicted defendant based on his guilty plea and sentenced him to 24 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, 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

State v. Balfour
814 P.2d 1069 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1991)
State v. Goin
556 P.3d 663 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
343 Or. App. 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gilligan-orctapp-2025.