State v. Bailey

No. 689              July 30, 2025                 325

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
               ROBERT JAMES BAILEY,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
              Lincoln County Circuit Court
                    121345; A184183

  Sheryl Bachart, Judge.
  Submitted June 13, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Chief Deputy 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.
326                                                        State v. Bailey

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant appeals an amended judgment of conviction. 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 March 2013, defendant was convicted, after a
jury trial, of three counts of first degree unlawful sexual
penetration, ORS 163.411 (Counts 1, 4, and 9); and seven
counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427 (Counts
2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12). The verdicts on Counts 11 and 12
were nonunanimous.
          Defendant was sentenced to 300 months in prison
on Count 1; 75 months in prison on Count 2, concurrent with
Count 1; 300 months in prison on Count 4, with 108 months
consecutive to Count 1 and the remaining months concurrent with Count 1; 75 months in prison on Count 5, concurrent with Count 4; 75 months in prison on Count 7, consecutive to the sentences on Counts 1, 4, and 9; 300 months in
prison on Count 9, consecutive to the sentences on Counts
1 and 4; 75 months on Count 10, concurrent with the sentences on Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9; 75 months in prison on
Count 11, concurrent with the sentences on Counts 1, 2, 4,
5, 7, 9, and 10; and 75 months in prison on Count 12, concurrent with the sentences on Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11.
          Defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction
relief, and the post-conviction court vacated defendant’s convictions on Counts 11 and 12 and remanded to the criminal
trial court, pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana, 

, 

, 

 (2020) and Watkins v. Ackley,

, 

 (2022). The post-conviction court
concluded that defendant had failed to prove any of his other
claims, including that any of the jury’s findings supporting
departure sentences were nonunanimous.
        On remand, the state moved to dismiss Counts 11
and 12, and the criminal trial court granted that motion.
The court then entered an amended judgment resentencing
   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)            327

defendant on the remaining counts as it had in 2013. This
appeal followed.
         Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file, the transcript of the hearings and the bench trial,
and the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.
        Affirmed.