deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel
How later courts described this case
- deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
No. 350 May 30, 2024 765
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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
SARAH BRAUSEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Nichole BROWN,
Superintendent,
Coffee Creek Correctional Facility,
Defendant-Respondent.
Washington County Circuit Court
21CV19834; A181078
Patricia A. Sullivan, Senior Judge.
Submitted April 16, 2024.
Jason Weber and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for
appellant.
Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appear-
ance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Affirmed.
766 Brausen v. Brown
LAGESEN, C. J.
Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying post-
conviction relief. Her appointed counsel filed a brief pur-
suant 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
Petitioner entered guilty pleas to first-degree bur-
glary and first-degree forgery, and she was ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of $13,668.57, joint and several
with her codefendant. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief
arguing, among other things, that she was denied effective
assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to object to
an unreasonable amount of restitution and failed to inform
petitioner that she could object to the amount. However, in
the post-conviction court, petitioner’s trial counsel submit-
ted an affidavit stating that, prior to pleading guilty, trial
counsel discussed with petitioner all aspects of the stipu-
lated settlement, including the restitution amount, and that
he advised petitioner of her right to contest the amount. The
post-conviction court denied the petition.
Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file and the transcript of the hearings, and having
reviewed the Balfour brief, 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. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding
matter submitted 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).