Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

331 Or. App. 619

State v. Wong

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. 190              March 27, 2024                    619

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
          SCHUYLER HOLDEN DONG WONG,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
            Washington County Circuit Court
                 20CR10774; A181582

  Ricardo J. Menchaca, Judge.
  Submitted February 13, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Matthew Blythe, 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, C. J., and Egan, J.
  LAGESEN, C. J.
  Affirmed.
620                                                          State v. Wong

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking
probation and imposing a 24-month prison sentence. 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 November 2021, defendant pleaded guilty to
three counts of felony fourth-degree assault constituting
domestic violence, ORS 163.160(3). Defendant was sentenced
to five years of probation. In April 2023, defendant admitted
to probation violations. In May 2023, the trial court revoked
probation and imposed a 24-month sentence on one of the
counts and concurrent terms of six months and 13 months
on the other two counts.
         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(5), 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/619 · .json · Public domain