State v. Fitzpatrick

448                    April 2, 2025               No. 284

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
         TYANNA MARIE FITZPATRICK,
                Defendant-Appellant.
          Clackamas County Circuit Court
  23CR20388, 24CR17144; A185257 (Control), A185256

  Jeffrey S. Jones, Judge.
  Submitted February 14, 2025.
  Frances J. Gray 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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                            449

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenges
two judgments entered after she pleaded guilty to various
offenses. 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
         In Case No. 23CR20388, defendant pleaded guilty
to three counts of aggravated identity theft, ORS 165.803,
and two counts of identity theft, ORS 165.800. Based on various stipulations, the trial court sentenced defendant to a
total term of 60 months in prison followed by three years
of post-prison supervision (PPS). In Case No. 24CR17144,
defendant pleaded guilty to one count of failure to appear
in the first degree, ORS 162.205. The trial court sentenced
defendant to a stipulated sentence of three months in prison
concurrent to her sentence in the other case and two years
of PPS.
         Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court files in the two cases, the transcript of the hearings,
and 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, 

, 

 (2021) (deciding
matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.
Nooth, 

, 

 (2012), rev den, 

 (2013) (same).