Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

334 Or. App. 663

State v. Cleaver

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 28, 2024

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2024-08-28

Applies OR 166 § 166.220 · OR 2 § 2.570

Affirmed · Decided 2024-08-28

No. 614             August 28, 2024                663

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
              DREW DOUGLAS CLEAVER,
                   aka Drew Cleaver,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
              Malheur County Circuit Court
                  21CR27921; A181952

  Erin K. Landis, Judge.
  Submitted July 12, 2024.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Laura A. Frikert, 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.
  EGAN, J.
  Affirmed.
664                                                       State v. Cleaver

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant appeals a supplemental judgment entered
after a probation revocation hearing. Defendant’s 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
         Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a
weapon, ORS 166.220. The trial court suspended imposition
of sentence and placed defendant on supervised probation
for a period of 24 months. Over a year later, defendant was
ordered to show cause why probation should not be revoked.
After a hearing, the trial court continued probation, ordered
10 days in jail with credit for time served, and ordered defendant to complete eight days of work crew.
         Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file, the transcript of the probation revocation hearing, and the Balfour brief, 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).

/334/orapp/663 · .json · Public domain