No. 681 July 30, 2025 305 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. TEL WILLIAM PETHTEL, Defendant-Appellant.

Malheur County Circuit Court 19CR11085; A184200 Erin K. Landis, Judge.

Submitted June 13, 2025.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Shawn Wiley, 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.

306 State v. Pethtel LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation and sentencing him to 36 months’ imprisonment with 24 months’ post-prison supervision, with 18 months’ impris- onment to be consecutive to a sentence in an Idaho case.

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 pleaded guilty to one count of coercion and two counts of dissemination of an intimate image. The state dismissed 10 other counts of dissemination. Defendant stipulated to a grid block, and the state stipulated to a downward departure to probation. The court sentenced him to 36 months’ probation and a $2,000 compensatory fine.

The parties had also agreed that if defendant’s probation was revoked, he would be sentenced to 36-months’ impris- onment with 24 months’ post-prison supervision. More than two years later, the state moved to revoke probation, alleg- ing that defendant had committed new crimes, possessed a firearm, and failed to pay the fine.

At a subsequent probation revocation hearing, defendant admitted that he had been convicted of man- slaughter in Idaho. The state dropped the other two alle- gations. The court sentenced defendant according to the plea agreement, imposing the 36-month prison term and 24 months post-prison supervision. The court imposed half of the prison sentence concurrent with defendant’s sentence in the Idaho case, and half consecutive to it.

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.