State v. Solis

74                    December 24, 2025              No. 1116

     This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
                  JOSE FERNANDO SOLIS,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                 Malheur County Circuit Court
                     17CR75390; A185836

     Erin K. Landis, Judge.
     Submitted November 14, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Anna R. Johnson, 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.
     EGAN, J.
     Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                              75

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his probation. After pleading guilty, defendant was sentenced to probation on convictions for second-degree arson and two counts
of recklessly endangering another person. Defendant violated his probation on multiple occasions. His probation was
revoked. After revoking defendant’s probation, the trial court
sentenced defendant to 120 days in county jail on the arson
charge, with 24 months of post-prison supervision (PPS) and
120 days in jail on the reckless endangerment charges, to run
concurrently with the arson sentence. The court also continued defendant’s restitution obligation and vacated all other
fines. 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
files, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, and
taking into account our statutorily circumscribed authority
to review, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues
in either case. See ORS 138.105.
           Affirmed.




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