116 August 27, 2025 No. 768 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. SHANE ALLEN MAASS, Defendant-Appellant.

Lane County Circuit Court 22CR30101; A184326 Debra K. Vogt, Judge.

Submitted July 11, 2025.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, 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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 116 (2025) 117 LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation and sentencing him to 19 months’ prison and three years’ post-prison supervision, pursuant to a plea agreement.

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 convicted of felon in possession of a firearm and entered into a plea agreement that provided for a downward dispositional departure to probation, with a condition that defendant enter and complete the Lane County Adult Treatment Court. The court issued an Order to Show Cause for failure to progress in the treatment court program and defendant admitted that he failed to progress in the treatment court program. Defendant then failed to appear at a subsequent hearing, and the court terminated him from the treatment program. Defendant then appeared before the court and again admitted to failure to progress in the treatment court program. Based on those admissions, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced defendant pursuant to the plea 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.