Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

344 Or. App. 587

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 29, 2025

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2025-10-29

Applies OR 138 § 138.105 · OR 2 § 2.570

Affirmed · Decided 2025-10-29

No. 949              October 29, 2025               587

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
                   DEREK IAN SMITH,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Josephine County Circuit Court
                   21CR00718; A184143

  Suzanne B. Chanti, Judge.
  Submitted September 12, 2025.
    Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender,
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.
588                                                        State v. Smith

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered
after defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter
and unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm. Appointed
counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v.
Balfour, 
311 Or 434
, 
814 P2d 1069
 (1991). The brief does not
contain a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1
         Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder
with a firearm, first-degree robbery with a firearm, and
unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm. The trial court
accepted the parties’ plea agreement. It entered convictions
for the lesser-included offense of first-degree manslaughter
and unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm, dismissed
the robbery charge, and sentenced defendant to stipulated
sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment with credit for time
served. 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.

/344/orapp/587 · .json · Public domain