Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2025

State v. Trudell

State v. Trudell
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided May 29, 2025 · Lagesen
340 Or. App. 760

State v. Trudell

Opinion

760 May 29, 2025 No. 465 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. JON ARTHUR TRUDELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Lane County Circuit Court 23CR46943; A183885 Charles M. Zennaché, Judge.

Submitted April 11, 2025.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joshua B. Crowther, 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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 340 Or App 760 (2025) 761 LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary.

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 Defendant was arrested after being confronted inside someone else’s house. He was charged with first- degree burglary of an occupied dwelling. Due to his history of prior property crimes, he was subject to statutory sentence enhancements. He pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary of a dwelling, with the state dropping the “occupied” allega- tion and with both parties stipulating to a recommended sentence. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced defendant according to the agreement.

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).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.