222 February 26, 2025 No. 143 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. THOMAS MARK WHITELAW III, Defendant-Appellant.

Deschutes County Circuit Court 21CR07610; A181648 Alison M. Emerson, Judge.

Submitted January 10, 2025.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 222 (2025) 223 LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427. His appointed counsel filed a brief pur- suant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief contains a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1 The state charged defendant with 21 sex crimes.

After a settlement conference, the state agreed to dismiss most of the charges and defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The trial court sen- tenced defendant to the stipulated sentence of 240 months in prison. In Section B of his brief, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to continue the trial date. However, we have no author- ity to review that intermediate trial court ruling. State v. Colgrove, 370 Or 474, 500, 521 P3d 456 (2022).

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