State v. Solorio

246                   April 24, 2024              No. 266

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
               JULIO CESAR SOLORIO,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
              Douglas County Circuit Court
                 22CR36078; A180933
  George William Ambrosini, Judge.
  Submitted March 8, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Peter G. Klym, 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.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)                            247

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Defendant appeals from a judgment of probation
violation. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 

, 

(1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP
5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1
         In July 2022, based on conduct involving a minor,
defendant pleaded no contest to coercion, ORS 163.275, and
third-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.415. The trial court
imposed a stipulated sentence of 36 months of probation. In
December 2022, defendant’s probation officer alleged that
defendant violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing, the trial court found that the state carried its burden
regarding three of the four allegations of probation violations. The trial court continued probation, sentenced defendant to serve 30 days in custody, and added new conditions
of probation.
         Having reviewed the record, including the trial court
file and the transcript of the hearings, and having reviewed
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. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 

, 

 (2021) (deciding
matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.
Nooth, 

, 

 (2012), rev den, 

 (2013) (same).