Full text
State v. Clunes
No. 443 June 26, 2024 499
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. AARON BRANDER CLUNES, Defendant-Appellant. Columbia County Circuit Court 22CR08805; A181211
Denise E. Keppinger, Judge. Submitted May 13, 2024. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services filed the brief for appel- lant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed.
500 State v. Clunes
EGAN, J. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm with a firearm, ORS 161.610, ORS 166.270(1), and one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to 90 months in prison. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursu- ant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief contains a Section B, in which defen- dant argues that there was a violation of his speedy trial rights, he challenges the accuracy of the trial court tran- scripts, and he argues that he was not timely arraigned. The state filed an answering brief responding to those argu- ments. Reviewing under ORAP 5.90(3) for “arguably merito- rious issues,” we affirm.1 Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file and the transcript of the hearings, and having reviewed the Balfour brief, including defendant’s arguments in Section B of the brief and the state’s response to those arguments, and taking into account our statutorily circum- scribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105, we have iden- tified no arguably meritorious issues. Affirmed.
1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding matter sub- mitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v. Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).