Warren v. State of Oregon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Warren v. State of Oregon

347 Or. App. 479

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 25, 2026

DocketA185180

StatusUnpublished

This text of 347 Or. App. 479 (Warren v. State of Oregon) 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

Warren v. State of Oregon, 347 Or. App. 479 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 151 February 25, 2026 479

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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

KEONI HENRY WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant-Respondent. Multnomah County Circuit Court 23CV22071; A185180

Eric L. Dahlin, Judge. Submitted January 9, 2026. Jason Weber and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for appellant. Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appear- ance for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Affirmed. 480 Warren v. State of Oregon

LAGESEN, C. J. Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post- conviction relief. 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 Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. He alleged that the guilty verdicts in his case had been nonunanimous. The state filed a motion for summary judg- ment, attaching evidence that the verdicts were unanimous. At a hearing, the post-conviction court asked petitioner if he had a response to that evidence, and neither petitioner nor his appointed counsel had a response. The post-conviction court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment denying relief on the petition. Having reviewed the record, including the post- conviction court file and the transcript of the hearing, and having reviewed the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues. See State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 333-34, 478 P3d 515 (2020) (concluding that, as to unanimous guilty verdicts, the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it could return nonunanimous guilty verdicts was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). Affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

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

No. 151 February 25, 2026 479

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

KEONI HENRY WARREN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant-Respondent. Multnomah County Circuit Court 23CV22071; A185180

Eric L. Dahlin, Judge. Submitted January 9, 2026. Jason Weber and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for appellant. Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appear- ance for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Affirmed. 480 Warren v. State of Oregon

LAGESEN, C. J. Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post- conviction relief. 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 Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. He alleged that the guilty verdicts in his case had been nonunanimous. The state filed a motion for summary judg- ment, attaching evidence that the verdicts were unanimous. At a hearing, the post-conviction court asked petitioner if he had a response to that evidence, and neither petitioner nor his appointed counsel had a response. The post-conviction court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment denying relief on the petition. Having reviewed the record, including the post- conviction court file and the transcript of the hearing, and having reviewed the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues. See State v. Flores Ramos, 367 Or 292, 333-34, 478 P3d 515 (2020) (concluding that, as to unanimous guilty verdicts, the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it could return nonunanimous guilty verdicts was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). Affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 Or. App. 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-state-of-oregon-orctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack