State v. Lane

338 Or. App. 228
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 26, 2025
DocketA182887
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 338 Or. App. 228 (State v. Lane) 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. Lane, 338 Or. App. 228 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

228 February 26, 2025 No. 146

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. ROGER EUGENE LANE, Defendant-Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 23CR40225; A182887

Robert S. Bain, Judge. Submitted January 10, 2025. Frances J. Gray 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 Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 228 (2025) 229

LAGESEN, C. J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of violating a stalking protec- tive order (SPO). The trial court sentenced defendant to 35 months in prison and 25 months of post-prison supervision. 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 September 2022, the victim obtained a tempo- rary SPO against defendant, and she obtained a permanent SPO in October 2022. Defendant was served with the SPOs. The jury found defendant guilty of violating the permanent SPO based on evidence that defendant was pacing out- side the victim’s home in August 2023 yelling obscenities. Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript 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. Lane
338 Or. App. 228 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
338 Or. App. 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lane-orctapp-2025.