State v. Lopez-Castro

144                  October 8, 2025             No. 883

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
           JULIO FERMIN LOPEZ-CASTRO,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
             Marion County Circuit Court
                23CR41831; A182730

  Sean E. Armstrong, Judge.
  Submitted August 20, 2025.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Erik Blumenthal Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the briefs for
appellant. Julio Fermin Lopez-Castro filed the supplemental brief pro se.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
  JOYCE, J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)             145

        JOYCE, J.
         Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction
for attempted first-degree assault with a firearm, unlawful
use of a weapon with a firearm, and felon in possession of a
firearm. On appeal, defendant raises an unpreserved challenge to his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm,
arguing that the statute is unconstitutional both facially
and as applied to him. Defendant’s as-applied challenge is
controlled by State v. Parras, 

, 

,
rev dismissed as improvidently allowed, March 4, 2025, in
which we concluded that Oregon’s felon in possession of a
firearm statute, ORS 166.270, was constitutional as applied
to the defendant. And given that ORS 166.270 is constitutional as applied to defendant, his unpreserved facial challenge fails as well. See City of Portland v. Sottile, 

, 

 (2024) (to successfully mount a facial
challenge, a defendant must show that there is “no set of circumstances” under which the law would be valid (internal
citations omitted)).
         Defendant has also filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Defendant does not assign error to any particular rulings,
provide citations to where in the record the purported
errors appear, and has not developed arguments in support
of his claims of error. We therefore are unable to meaningfully address his claims of error. See ORAP 5.45 (requiring assignments of error with citations to the record); see
also State v. Montez, 

, 

 (1990)
(declining to address arguments in the absence of “thorough
and focused analysis”).
        Affirmed.