State v. Madrigal

334 Or. App. 654
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedAugust 28, 2024
DocketA181050
StatusUnpublished

This text of 334 Or. App. 654 (State v. Madrigal) 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. Madrigal, 334 Or. App. 654 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

654 August 28, 2024 No. 612

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. JOSE DIAZ MADRIGAL, aka Jose Diaz Madrigal, aka Jose Diaz-Madrigal, Defendant-Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 22CR57378; A181050

Jon S. Lieuallen, Judge. Submitted July 12, 2024. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Carla Edmondson, 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. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 334 Or App 654 (2024) 655

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for assault in the fourth degree constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.160, and harassment, ORS 166.065. A jury found defendant guilty of those charges. The trial court suspended execution of defendant’s jail sentence and imposed three years of formal 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 Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the hearings, the transcript of the jury 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. Balfour
814 P.2d 1069 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1991)
Ballinger v. Nooth
295 P.3d 115 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2012)
State v. Yother
484 P.3d 1098 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
334 Or. App. 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-madrigal-orctapp-2024.