State v. Kenney

646                 August 28, 2024               No. 609

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
              LISA RACHELLE KENNEY,
      aka Lisa Rachelle Kennedy, aka Lisa Kenney,
      aka Lisa R. Kenney, aka Lisa Rachelle Kenny,
        aka Lisa Peck, aka Lisa Rachelle Staehle,
   aka Lisa Rachelle Staelhe, aka Lisa R. Vannonstern,
 aka Lisa Rochelle Vannost, aka Lisa Rachelle Vanostern,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
             Umatilla County Circuit Court
                  21CR18422; A182407

  Jon S. Lieuallen, Judge.
  Submitted July 12, 2024.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Nora Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, 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.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)                            647

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation.
Defendant’s 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
         Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal driving while
suspended or revoked, ORS 811.182(3), and failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged, ORS
811.700. The trial court imposed a downward departure sentence of 36 months of probation and the parties stipulated
that any revocation of probation would result in a prison
sentence of 14 months. Defendant admitted violating the
terms of her probation, and the trial court revoked probation
and imposed the stipulated sentence.
         Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file, the transcript of the hearings, and 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).