State v. McCall

720                 October 1, 2025               No. 859

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
                RACHEL J. McCALL,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
              Union County Circuit Court
                23CR10832; A184424

  Thomas B. Powers, Judge.
  Submitted August 8, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Daniel Bennett, 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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 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)                            721

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered
after defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fourth-degree
assault constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.160(3), and
resisting arrest, ORS 162.315. 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 April 2023, defendant was indicted for fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence, ORS
163.160(3) (Count 1); third-degree escape, ORS 162.145
(Count 2); and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315 (Count 3). A
year later, in April 2024, defendant pleaded guilty to Counts
1 and 3 in exchange for Count 1 being treated as an A misdemeanor rather than a C felony, dismissal of Count 2, and
conditional discharge of Count 3. On Count 1, the trial court
suspended imposition of sentence and imposed 36 months
of supervised probation and 10 days in jail. On Count 3, the
court imposed a sentence of conditional discharge.
         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. Daily, 

, 

 (2024) (deciding
matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); State v. Goin, 

, 

 (2024) (same).