Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

331 Or. App. 617

State v. Vinson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 27, 2024

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2024-03-27

Applies OR 138 § 138.105 · OR 163 § 163.160 · OR 2 § 2.570

Affirmed · Decided 2024-03-27

No. 189                 March 27, 2024                       617

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
                BRYDON JAYMES VINSON,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
                 Lane County Circuit Court
                   22CR57836; A180660

   Stephen W. Morgan, Judge.
   Submitted February 13, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kristin A. Carveth, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, 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.
618                                                        State v. Vinson

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction
for fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence,
ORS 163.160. 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 January 2023, defendant pleaded guilty to felony
fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence, ORS
163.160(3). Pursuant to the negotiations and stipulation of
the parties, the trial court treated the felony as a misdemeanor and sentenced defendant to 36 months of probation.
An amended judgment was filed in March 2023 clarifying
that the offense was treated as a misdemeanor.
         Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file and the transcript of the hearings, and the 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. 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).

/331/orapp/617 · .json · Public domain