No. 354 May 30, 2024 775 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. RUSSELL CHARLES HOCKENBURY, Defendant-Appellant.

Lane County Circuit Court 22CR33105; A180875 Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge.

Submitted April 16, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender filed the brief for respondent. Section B of the brief was prepared by defendant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Affirmed.

776 State v. Hockenbury EGAN, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking proba- tion. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991).

The brief contains a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). The state filed an answering brief responding to the arguments raised in Section B of the brief. Reviewing under ORAP 5.90(3) for “arguably meritorious issues,” we affirm.1 In August 2022, defendant pleaded guilty to stran- gulation constituting domestic violence, ORS 163.187(4), and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315. The trial court sentenced defendant to 36 months of probation, and a special condi- tion of his probation required no contact with the victim.

In November 2022, defendant was ordered to show cause why probation should not be revoked. After a hearing in February 2023, the trial court found that defendant had contacts with the victim. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to 30 months in prison with two years of post-prison supervision.

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, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues.

Affirmed.

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).