No. 730 August 13, 2025 603 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. AMY LYNN ZIMMERMAN, aka Amy L. Zimmerman, Defendant-Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court 15CR58947, 18CR66984; A181840 (Control), A181841 Matthew L. Tracey, Judge pro tempore.

Submitted May 9, 2025.

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

Amy Zimmerman filed the supplemental briefs pro se.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge.

HELLMAN, J.

Affirmed.

604 State v. Zimmerman HELLMAN, J.

In this consolidated criminal appeal involving two separate cases, defendant appeals from a judgment revok- ing probation in one of those cases, 18CR66984. Defendant argues that the court abused its discretion by revoking pro- bation and, as we understand her pro se supplemental brief, that the court erred by imposing prison time despite her suc- cessful completion of Veteran’s Treatment Court. We conclude that the court’s decision to revoke defendant’s probation was within its allowable discretion and, accordingly, affirm.

In case number 18CR66984, defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of identity theft, ORS 165.800, two counts of first-degree forgery, ORS 165.013, and one count of perjury, ORS 162.065. At the time of her plea, defendant was on probation for an earlier conviction in case number 15CR58947. As part of the plea settlement, defendant stipu- lated to 36 months of supervised probation in case number 18CR66984, and the court continued her probation in case number 15CR58947. The parties further stipulated that defendant would be subject to a term of imprisonment if the court revoked her probation.

Approximately a year later, defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), and the state issued a motion to show cause why defendant’s proba- tion should not be revoked. For various reasons, the DUII prosecution was delayed for multiple years. During the time that it was pending, defendant appeared on the state’s proba- tion violation motion and admitted to violating her probation in both cases, conceding that she had “failed to obey all laws.”

The court revoked defendant’s probation for both cases.

On appeal, defendant challenges the court’s revo- cation of probation in case number 18CR66984. Defendant argues that the court “identified no reason for revocation” of her probation in case number 18CR66984, beyond the court’s statement that it was terminating her probation in case number 15CR58947.

We review the revocation of probation for abuse of discretion. OAR 213-010-0001; State v. Hamilton, 321 Or App 803, 813, 518 P3d 618 (2022), rev den, 370 Or 740 (2023).

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 342 Or App 603 (2025) 605 The court did not abuse its discretion. A court may exercise its discretion to revoke probation “upon a finding that the offender has violated one or more of the conditions of probation.” OAR 213-010-0001; see also ORS 137.540(7) (“Failure to abide by all general and special conditions of pro- bation may result in * * * revocation of probation[.]”). One of the general conditions of defendant’s probation in case num- ber 18CR66984 was to “[o]bey all laws, municipal, county, state and federal.” Defendant admitted to violating that con- dition following her charge for DUII when she admitted that she “failed to obey all laws.” Although the court did not spe- cifically refer to that admission when it revoked defendant’s probation, it is “reasonable to infer” that its discretionary decision was based on that admission. See Hamilton, 321 Or App at 813 (affirming the court’s decision to revoke probation despite its failure to explain its reasoning because it was “rea- sonable to infer” that the discretionary decision was based on the defendant’s failure to complete a condition of probation).

Finally, in her pro se supplemental brief, defen- dant argues that she should not be subject to incarceration because she “successfully completed Veteran’s Treatment Court and all probation conditions.” Although it appears that Veteran’s Treatment Court was an important compo- nent, and perhaps the focus of, defendant’s probation, it was not the only condition that defendant had to fulfill. Despite her successful completion of Veteran’s Treatment Court, defendant did not comply with the probation condition to “obey all laws.” Defendant had previously agreed that if she failed to comply with the conditions of probation, she would be subject to a term of imprisonment. The sentences that the trial court imposed were in accordance with the parties’ stipulated agreement.

Defendant also raises additional concerns in her pro se brief; however, those concerns do not challenge any specific trial court ruling as required by ORAP 5.45(3). As a result, we are unable to review them. Village at North Pointe Condo. Assn. v. Bloedel Constr., 278 Or App 354, 360, 374 P3d 978, adh’d to as modified on recons, 281 Or App 322, 383 P3d 409 (2016).

Affirmed.