504 June 26, 2024 No. 445 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 DANIEL FAUSTINO ARCE, aka Daniel Arce, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jamie MILLER, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.

Malheur County Circuit Court 21CV00224; A181683 Erin K. Landis, Judge.

Submitted May 13, 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.

EGAN, J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 333 Or App 504 (2024) 505 EGAN, J.

Petitioner appeals from a judgment granting sum- mary judgment and dismissing his amended petition for post-conviction relief. 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 In 2017, petitioner was charged with 14 counts, including charges of first-degree robbery with a firearm, ORS 164.415(1)(a). In 2018, a jury returned a verdict of guilty on 11 of the 14 charges, and the other counts were dismissed. Petitioner was sentenced to over 200 months in prison.

In the post-conviction court, petitioner argued, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to assign error to the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it could reach a ver- dict of guilty without unanimous agreement of all jurors.

Petitioner also argued that the trial court’s jury instruc- tion, which allowed for nonunanimous jury verdicts, consti- tuted structural error and that he was actually innocent.

The superintendent filed a motion for summary judgment, pointing out, among other things, that each conviction was based on a unanimous jury verdict. The post-conviction court granted the superintendent’s motion and dismissed the amended 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.

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).