State v. Sky

774                   May 29, 2025                No. 471

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
               HAYLEY BARBARA SKY,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
               Lane County Circuit Court
                 22CR46714; A184121

  Debra K. Vogt, Judge.
  Submitted April 11, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Peter G. Klym, 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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 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)                            775

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant appeals from an order revoking probation and imposing a sentence of 14 months’ incarceration
and 24 months of post-prison supervision. 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
        Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Assault
in the Fourth Degree constituting domestic violence. ORS
163.160; ORS 135.230(4)(c); ORS 132.586. The trial court
accepted the plea and sentenced defendant to a stipulated
downward departure sentence that included 36-months’
probation. Defendant subsequently admitted that she violated the conditions of her probation. Her probation was
revoked, and she was sentenced to 14 months’ incarceration
and 24 months of post-prison supervision pursuant to the
stipulated sentence.
         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, 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).