476 June 26, 2024 No. 434 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. THEODORE WALLACE DENTON, aka Ted Denton, aka Theodore W. Denton, Defendant-Appellant.

Clackamas County Circuit Court CR1001160; A180723 Susie L. Norby, Judge.

Submitted May 13, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and David O. Ferry, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 476 (2024) 477 LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals from an amended judgment finding him guilty of two counts of first-degree theft, ORS 164.055 (Counts 3, 5); four counts of encouraging child sex- ual abuse (ECSA) in the first degree, ORS 163.684 (Counts 7, 9, 11, 13); and six counts of ECSA in the second degree, ORS 163.686 (Counts 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16). His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant 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 Defendant was convicted in 2010. In 2013, the post- conviction court denied relief. In 2016, we reversed and remanded with instructions to the post-conviction court to grant relief as to the first- and second-degree ECSA counts.

Denton v. Nooth, 283 Or App 179, 191, 388 P3d 341 (2016).

In September 2022, defendant was retried on the charges relating to first- and second-degree ECSA. The trial court found defendant guilty of those charges. Defendant was sen- tenced to a total prison term of approximately 80 months with credit for time served since 2010.

Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the arguments of counsel and the testimony of the witnesses at the September 2022 court trial, and the tran- script of the sentencing hearing, and having also reviewed the Balfour brief, 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).