No. 942 October 29, 2025 571
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
GEOFFREY LOUIS YOUNG,
Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
23CR45475, 23CN01958; A183886 (Control), A183316
Christopher A. Ramras, Judge.
Submitted September 12, 2025.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kali Montague, Chief 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.
572 State v. Young
LAGESEN, C. J.
In this consolidated case, defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty
to tampering with a witness and coercion, and a judgment
of contempt after defendant admitted that he violated a
restraining order. 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 was charged with multiple counts of
tampering with a witness and coercion, and with multiple
contempt counts. After accepting a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the offenses listed above and admitted the contempt, and the additional criminal charges and
counts of contempt were dismissed. In accordance with the
agreement, defendant, who had been facing presumptive
incarceration for a substantial amount of time under the
sentencing guidelines, was sentenced to 36 months’ supervised probation on the criminal charges and received 24
months’ probation for contempt.
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.
