262 November 26, 2025 No. 1023 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. DOUGLAS NATHAN FENNELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court 23CR24794; A184773 Tracy A. Prall, Judge.

Submitted October 10, 2025.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appel- lant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant.

Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 262 (2025) 263 EGAN, J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of second- degree rape, ORS 163.365 (Counts 1 and 3), and two counts of second-degree sodomy, ORS 163.395 (Counts 2 and 4).

Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief contains a Section B, in which defendant assigns error to the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences on Counts 3 and 4, on the basis of inadequate assistance of counsel, judi- cial bias and misconduct, violation of his right against self- incrimination, and denial of his motion for a continuance.

See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1 Defendant was indicted for two counts of second- degree rape and two counts of second-degree sodomy. He pleaded guilty to the crimes as charged in exchange for the state limiting the sentence it sought to a total of 200 months in prison, rather than the maximum sentence available of months in prison, and defendant being able to argue for a sentence of 75 months in prison. The trial court con- victed defendant based on his guilty plea and sentenced him to 75 months in prison on Count 1; 75 months in prison on Count 2, to run concurrently with the sentence on Count 1; months in prison on Count 3, to run consecutively to the sentence on Count 1; 36 months in prison on Count 4, to run consecutively to the sentences on Counts 1 and 3.

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.