No. 602 August 28, 2024 621 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. CARL DEAN McFARLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

Douglas County Circuit Court 22CR22293, 22CR25928, 22CR31704; A179915 (Control), A179914, A179913 Robert B. Johnson, Judge.

Submitted July 12, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Daniel C. Bennett, 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 Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.

622 State v. McFarland LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals from judgments revoking proba- tion in Douglas County Case Nos. 22CR22293, 22CR25928, and 22CR31704. In each of those cases, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and multiple other charges were dismissed.

In each of those cases, the trial court sentenced defendant to a downward departure sentence of 36 months of super- vised probation. Defendant agreed that if his probation was revoked, his offenses would be treated as a “7B” under the sentencing guidelines grid, for which the presumptive sen- tence is 25 to 30 months in prison. Defendant also stipu- lated to consecutive sentences. At his probation revocation hearing, defendant admitted to probation violations. After hearing argument from counsel, the trial court sentenced defendant to 90 months in prison.

Defendant’s 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, among other things, that he was not aware that he could be sentenced to a total of 90 months in prison.

The state filed an answering brief responding to defendant’s arguments. Reviewing under ORAP 5.90(3) for “arguably meritorious issues,” we affirm.1 Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file in each case 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 circumscribed authority to review, see ORS 138.105, 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).