No. 681 July 30, 2025 305
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
TEL WILLIAM PETHTEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Malheur County Circuit Court
19CR11085; A184200
Erin K. Landis, Judge.
Submitted June 13, 2025.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Shawn Wiley, 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.
306 State v. Pethtel
LAGESEN, C. J.
Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation
and sentencing him to 36 months’ imprisonment with 24
months’ post-prison supervision, with 18 months’ imprisonment to be consecutive to a sentence in an Idaho case.
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 coercion
and two counts of dissemination of an intimate image. The
state dismissed 10 other counts of dissemination. Defendant
stipulated to a grid block, and the state stipulated to a
downward departure to probation. The court sentenced him
to 36 months’ probation and a $2,000 compensatory fine.
The parties had also agreed that if defendant’s probation
was revoked, he would be sentenced to 36-months’ imprisonment with 24 months’ post-prison supervision. More than
two years later, the state moved to revoke probation, alleging that defendant had committed new crimes, possessed a
firearm, and failed to pay the fine.
At a subsequent probation revocation hearing,
defendant admitted that he had been convicted of manslaughter in Idaho. The state dropped the other two allegations. The court sentenced defendant according to the
plea agreement, imposing the 36-month prison term and 24
months post-prison supervision. The court imposed half of
the prison sentence concurrent with defendant’s sentence in
the Idaho case, and half consecutive to it.
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.
