State v. Halfmoon

66                    December 24, 2025              No. 1112

     This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
            JAMES BRIAN HALFMOON, Jr.,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Malheur County Circuit Court
     24CR53731, 24CR59311; A186406 (Control), A186407

     Erin K. Landis, Judge.
     Submitted November 14, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
  Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, waived
appearance for respondent.
     Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
     LAGESEN, C. J.
     Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                              67

           LAGESEN, C. J.
          In this consolidated case, defendant appeals judgments of conviction for giving false information to a peace
officer in connection with a citation or warrant, ORS 162.385
(Case No. 24CR53731) and theft in the second degree, ORS
164.045 (Case No. 24CR59311). In Case No. 24CR59311,
defendant was also charged with disorderly conduct, ORS
166.025, which was dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
Defendant was sentenced, as agreed by the parties, to 90
days in jail with credit for time served, which included time
served concurrently on other pending cases. 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
           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. See ORS 138.105(5) (“The appellate court
has no authority to review the validity of the defendant’s
plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the
defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest[.]”); ORS 138.105(9)
(“The appellate court has no authority to review any part of
a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement
between the state and the defendant.”).
           Affirmed.




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.