State v. Carlson

716 January 28, 2026 No. 47 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. ANNALISA EDURNE CARLSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Klamath County Circuit Court 23CR49263; A188170 Stephen R. Hedlund, Judge.

Submitted December 12, 2025.

Frances J. Gray filed the brief for appellant.

Lauren P. Robertson waived appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

EGAN, J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 346 Or App 716 (2026) 717 EGAN, J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after she pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual abuse. 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 charged with two counts of first- degree sodomy and two counts of incest, as well as one count of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and stipulated to sentences of 90 months on each count, to be served consecu- tively. In addition, 75 months of each of the sentences would be served pursuant to ORS 137.700, but the remainder of the sentence would be subject to sentence reduction. Defendant confirmed on the record that she understood the terms and that she was pleading guilty to avoid facing charges that carried 25-year sentences.

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(5) (“The appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defen- dant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest[.]”), we have iden- tified no arguably meritorious issues.

Affirmed.

As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.