Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2025

State v. Navarro-Paredes

State v. Navarro-Paredes
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided October 1, 2025 · Lagesen
343 Or. App. 703

State v. Navarro-Paredes

Opinion

No. 852 October 1, 2025 703 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. JOSE LUIS NAVARRO-PAREDES, aka Luis Navarroparedes, Defendant-Appellant.

Multnomah County Circuit Court 090331255; A183390 Cheryl A. Albrecht, Judge.

Submitted August 8, 2025.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Matthew Blythe, 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.

704 State v. Navarro-Paredes LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction.

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 2009, after a jury trial, defendant was convicted of 23 felonies and misdemeanors and sentenced to a total of 260 months’ imprisonment and 10 years of post-prison supervision. Five of those convictions were based on non- unanimous jury verdicts, and the judgment was remanded to the trial court, pursuant to Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US 83, 140 S Ct 1390, 206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020) and Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 523 P3d 86 (2022).

At the resentencing hearing, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the trial court dismissed the five counts that were based on non-unanimous jury verdicts and imposed a sentence totaling 215 months’ imprisonment on the remaining counts, with credit for time served, as well as years of post-prison supervision. This appeal followed.

Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the hearing, and 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.

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