State v. Brown

246                February 26, 2025              No. 155

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
          SHAKEYA ANITA MARIE BROWN,
                Defendant-Appellant.
             Marion County Circuit Court
                22CR58470; A183060

  Jodie A. Bureta, Judge.
  Submitted January 10, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Carla E. Edmondson, 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.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                            247

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered
after a conditional plea of guilty to one count of fleeing or
attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540. Her
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
          The state charged defendant with fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer because she drove away after a
traffic stop. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of her
“conduct in response to an unlawful seizure and extension
of a traffic stop.” The trial court denied the motion determining that a trooper had probable cause to stop defendant, and
that the trooper’s conduct during the stop was subjectively
and objectively reasonable. Defendant entered a conditional
plea of guilty, and the trial court sentenced defendant to a
stipulated sentence of 18 months of bench probation.
         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(9), 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).