No. 602 August 28, 2024 621
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
CARL DEAN McFARLAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
Douglas County Circuit Court
22CR22293, 22CR25928, 22CR31704;
A179915 (Control), A179914, A179913
Robert B. Johnson, Judge.
Submitted July 12, 2024.
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.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Affirmed.
622 State v. McFarland
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 Defendant agreed that if his probation was
revoked, his offenses would be treated as a “7B” under the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,
(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.1
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.
1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother,
