Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

335 Or. App. 245

State v. Thorne

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 25, 2024

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2024-09-25

Applies OR 138 § 138.105 · OR 163 § 163.395 · OR 163 § 163.408 · OR 163 § 163.427 · OR 163 § 163.670

Affirmed · Decided 2024-09-25

No. 681            September 25, 2024              245

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
              MATHEW ALLAN THORNE,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
               Lane County Circuit Court
                 23CR02509; A182009

  Stephen W. Morgan, Judge.
  Submitted August 9, 2024.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
  Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived
appearance for defendant.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge and Egan, Judge.
  LAGESEN, C. J.
  Affirmed.
246                                                       State v. Thorne

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered
after guilty pleas. Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse
in the first degree, ORS 163.427; three counts of sodomy in
the second degree, ORS 163.395; unlawful sexual penetration in the second degree, ORS 163.408; and three counts
of using a child in display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS
163.670. The parties jointly recommended a sentence of 300
months in prison, credit for time served, no eligibility for
early release, and 45 months of post-prison supervision. The
trial court imposed that sentence. We affirm.1
         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). 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, 
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).

/335/orapp/245 · .json · Public domain