No. 931 December 26, 2024 85 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF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. CLIFFTON DARREL KITCH, Defendant-Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court 16CR24172; A181889 Matthew L. Tracey, Judge.

Submitted November 8, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and David O. Ferry, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon 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.

86 State v. Kitch LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals a judgment revoking proba- tion and imposing a sentence of 39 months in prison. 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, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual abuse (Counts 1 and 2); one count of luring a minor (Count 4); and one count of delivery of mari- juana to a person under 18 (Count 5). As part of the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of 18 months in prison on Counts 1 and 4, and 60 months of probation on Counts 2 and 5. He agreed that if his proba- tion was revoked, then he could be sentenced to a total of 44 months in prison on Counts 2 and 5. In June 2023, the trial court found that defendant was in violation of his probation.

The trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to a total of 39 months in prison.

Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, 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).