Opinion
A179915 A179914 A179913
08-28-2024
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARL DEAN McFARLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Daniel C. Bennett, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted July 12, 2024
Douglas County Circuit Court 22CR22293, 22CR25928, 22CR31704; Robert B. Johnson, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Daniel C. Bennett, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
Affirmed.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Defendant appeals from judgments revoking probation in Douglas County Case Nos. 22CR22293, 22CR25928, and 22CR31704. In each of those cases, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and multiple other charges were dismissed. In each of those cases, the trial court sentenced defendant to a downward departure sentence of 36 months of supervised probation. Defendant agreed that if his probation was revoked, his offenses would be treated as a "7B" under the sentencing guidelines grid, for which the presumptive sentence is 25 to 30 months in prison. Defendant also stipulated to consecutive sentences. At his probation revocation hearing, defendant admitted to probation violations. After hearing argument from counsel, the trial court sentenced defendant to 90 months in prison.
Defendant's appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or. 434, 814 P.2d 1069 (1991). The brief contains a Section B, in which defendant argues, among other things, that he was not aware that he could be sentenced to a total of 90 months in prison. The state filed an answering brief responding to defendant's arguments. Reviewing under ORAP 5.90(3) for "arguably meritorious issues," we affirm.
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 P.3d 1098 (2021) (deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v. Nooth, 254 Or.App. 402. 295 P.3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or. 747 (2013) (same).
Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file in each case and the transcript of the hearings, and having reviewed the Balfour brief, including defendant's arguments in Section B of the brief and the state's response to those arguments, and taking into account our statutorily circumscribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.
Affirmed.