State v. Harrison

346 Or. App. 76

Opinion

76 December 24, 2025 No. 1117

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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.

TIFFANY DAWN HARRISON,

Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24CR09131; A186101

Charles M. Zennaché, Judge. Submitted November 14, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Peter G. Klym, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 346 Or App 76 (2025) 77

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation and sentencing her to 60 months in prison. 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 April 2024, defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree assault based on her guilty plea. The trial court sentenced her to 36 months of probation, the conditions of which included reporting to her probation officer as directed. Several months later, in October 2024, the court issued an order to show cause why defendant’s probation should not be revoked based on her failure to report to her probation officer as directed by the court. The court held a hearing at which the probation officer testified that defendant failed to report to her since a September 2024 hearing at which the trial court directed defendant to immediately report to her probation officer. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to 60 months in prison.

Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, 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.