State v. Young

344 Or. App. 571

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: A183886
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 942 October 29, 2025 571

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. GEOFFREY LOUIS YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 23CR45475, 23CN01958; A183886 (Control), A183316

Christopher A. Ramras, Judge. Submitted September 12, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, Chief 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. 572 State v. Young

LAGESEN, C. J. In this consolidated case, defendant appeals a judg- ment of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty to tampering with a witness and coercion, and a judgment of contempt after defendant admitted that he violated a restraining order. 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 was charged with multiple counts of tampering with a witness and coercion, and with multiple contempt counts. After accepting a plea agreement, defen- dant pleaded guilty to the offenses listed above and admit- ted the contempt, and the additional criminal charges and counts of contempt were dismissed. In accordance with the agreement, defendant, who had been facing presumptive incarceration for a substantial amount of time under the sentencing guidelines, was sentenced to 36 months’ super- vised probation on the criminal charges and received 24 months’ probation for contempt. 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.