State v. Kenney

334 Or. App. 646

Opinion

646 August 28, 2024 No. 609

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. LISA RACHELLE KENNEY, aka Lisa Rachelle Kennedy, aka Lisa Kenney, aka Lisa R. Kenney, aka Lisa Rachelle Kenny, aka Lisa Peck, aka Lisa Rachelle Staehle, aka Lisa Rachelle Staelhe, aka Lisa R. Vannonstern, aka Lisa Rochelle Vannost, aka Lisa Rachelle Vanostern, Defendant-Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 21CR18422; A182407

Jon S. Lieuallen, Judge. Submitted July 12, 2024. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Nora Coon, 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 Nonprecedential Memo Op: 334 Or App 646 (2024) 647

LAGESEN, C. J. Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation. Defendant’s 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 pleaded guilty to criminal driving while suspended or revoked, ORS 811.182(3), and failure to per- form the duties of a driver when property is damaged, ORS 811.700. The trial court imposed a downward departure sen- tence of 36 months of probation and the parties stipulated that any revocation of probation would result in a prison sentence of 14 months. Defendant admitted violating the terms of her probation, and the trial court revoked probation and imposed the stipulated sentence. 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. 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).