242 November 26, 2025 No. 1016 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. TAIVON JAVON LAMONT CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Umatilla County Circuit Court 23CR21865; A183384 Jon S. Lieuallen, Judge.

Submitted October 10, 2025.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, 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.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 242 (2025) 243 LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for assaulting a public safety officer, ORS 163.208. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). Defendant sepa- rately filed a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1 Defendant pleaded guilty to assaulting a correc- tions officer while he was serving a 90-month sentence.

The plea petition stipulated to a sentencing guidelines grid block of 6A, corresponding to 25-30 months’ imprisonment, and specified that the parties agreed to an open sentence.

The state represented that it agreed not to seek sentencing enhancements as part of the agreement. The trial court sen- tenced defendant to 30 months’ imprisonment.

In his pro se brief, defendant contends that his attor- ney misinformed him about the sentencing agreement, that he did not move for a change of venue, and that he failed to present certain evidence at sentencing. To the extent that defendant’s claims rest on the contention that his lawyer performed inadequately, those claims do not present argu- ably meritorious issues because, as a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal. State v. Dell, 156 Or App 184, 188, 967 P2d 507, rev den, 328 Or 194 (1998).

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.