State v. Korsmyer

338 Or. App. 224
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 26, 2025
DocketA182597
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 338 Or. App. 224 (State v. Korsmyer) 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. Korsmyer, 338 Or. App. 224 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

224 February 26, 2025 No. 144

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 JAMES KORSMYER, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 23CR17934; A182597

Leslie G. Bottomly, 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 Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 224 (2025) 225

LAGESEN, C. J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for criminal trespass in the second degree, ORS 164.245. 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 In February 2023, defendant and two others entered a property in Portland late at night as part of their ghost hunting hobby. They were arrested and charged with second-degree trespassing. A jury found them guilty, and the trial court imposed a sentence of discharge. Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the tran- script of the hearings and the trial, 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. 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Korsmyer
338 Or. App. 224 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
338 Or. App. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-korsmyer-orctapp-2025.