568 January 29, 2025 No. 59 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. CODY DEAN HILDEBRANDT, Defendant-Appellant.

Linn County Circuit Court 23CR01191, 23CR36460, 23CR51417; A184229 (Control), A184225, A184226 Michael B. Wynhausen, Judge.

Submitted December 13, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kristin A. Carveth, 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.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 337 Or App 568 (2025) 569 LAGESEN, C. J.

In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenges a judgment revoking probation in Case No. 23CR01191, a judg- ment of conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) in Case No. 23CR36460, and a judgment of conviction for two counts of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer in Case No. 23CR51417. 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 Case No. 23CR01191, the trial court found that defendant violated his probation by committing new crimes.

The trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to months in prison pursuant to ORS 137.717, and 12 months of post-prison supervision. In Case No. 23CR36460, defen- dant pleaded no contest to one count of UUV, and the trial court sentenced defendant to 10 months in prison consecu- tive to his sentence in Case No. 23CR01191, for a total term of 40 months in prison. In Case No. 23CR51417, defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. The trial court imposed a stipulated upward departure sentence of 6 months in prison concur- rent to his other sentences.

Having reviewed the record, including the trial court files in the three cases, the transcript of the hearings, and the Balfour brief, and taking into account our statuto- rily 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).