No. 692 July 30, 2025 333 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 ROBIN LEE KNUTSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON, Defendant-Respondent.

Marion County Circuit Court 23CV14904; A185620 Jodie A. Bureta, Judge.

Submitted June 13, 2025.

Corbin Brooks and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for appellant.

Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appear- ance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Affirmed.

334 Knutson v. State of Oregon EGAN, J.

Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post- conviction relief. 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 October 2000, petitioner was convicted of two counts of attempted aggravated murder and one count of supplying contraband and was sentenced to a total of 300 months in prison. Petitioner appealed the judgment of con- viction, and we affirmed without opinion. State v. Knutson, 185 Or App 163, 58 P 3d 853 (2002).

Thereafter, in 2004, petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court denied that petition, petitioner appealed, and we affirmed without opinion. Knutson v. Belleque, 218 Or App 375, 180 P 3d 185 (2008).

Many years later, in April 2023, petitioner initiated a second post-conviction relief proceeding that is the subject of the instant appeal and was appointed counsel. The state moved for summary judgment on the grounds that petition- er’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, ORS 138.510(3), and because his claims could have been raised in his first post-conviction relief proceeding, ORS 138.550(3).

Petitioner did not file a written response to the state’s motion and, at a subsequent hearing, acknowledged, through coun- sel, that he did not have legal arguments against the motion for summary judgment. The post-conviction court granted the motion and entered a judgment denying relief. This appeal followed.

Having reviewed the record, including the post- conviction court file and the transcript of the hearing, and having reviewed the Balfour brief, 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.