338 ORAPP 222 - State v. Whitelaw

222                 February 26, 2025             No. 143

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
           THOMAS MARK WHITELAW III,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
            Deschutes County Circuit Court
                 21CR07610; A181648

  Alison M. Emerson, Judge.
  Submitted January 10, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  LAGESEN, C. J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op:

338 Or App 222

 (2025)                            223

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered
after he pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual
abuse, ORS 163.427. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour,

311 Or 434

814 P2d 1069

 (1991). The brief contains a Section B. See ORAP
5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1
         The state charged defendant with 21 sex crimes.
After a settlement conference, the state agreed to dismiss
most of the charges and defendant pleaded guilty to four
counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated sentence of 240 months
in prison. In Section B of his brief, defendant argues that the
trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion
to continue the trial date. However, we have no authority to review that intermediate trial court ruling. State v.
Colgrove,

370 Or 474, 500

521 P3d 456

 (2022).
          Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour
brief, including the arguments in Section B of the 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).