Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

336 Or. App. 456

State v. Wiley

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 27, 2024

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2024-11-27

Applies OR 2 § 2.570

Affirmed · Decided 2024-11-27

456                November 27, 2024              No. 850

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
               SARAH TERESA WILEY,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
               Coos County Circuit Court
                 22CN05789; A182426

  Andrew E. Combs, Judge.
  Submitted October 11, 2024.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Joel Duran, 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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 
336 Or App 456
 (2024)                            457

           LAGESEN, C. J.
        Defendant appeals an amended judgment of contempt. Her 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
         After violating a restraining order by contacting the
protected party on two separate occasions, defendant admitted to four counts of contempt and entered a deferred sentencing program. About nine months later, the trial court
revoked defendant’s deferred sentence because she failed to
attend a required program. The trial court entered a judgment finding defendant in contempt on four counts of violating the restraining order. The trial court later entered an
amended judgment merging the findings of contempt on two
of the four counts and sentencing defendant to 18 months of
bench probation.
         Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file, the transcript of the hearings, 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).

/336/orapp/456 · .json · Public domain