Duong v. Miller

No. 40 January 28, 2026 693 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 VAN SAN DUONG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jamie Miller, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.

Malheur County Circuit Court 22CV26981; A186290 J. Burdette Pratt, Senior Judge.

Submitted December 12, 2025.

Jason Weber and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for appellant. Section B of the brief was prepared by appellant.

Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appear- ance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.

694 Duong v. Miller LAGESEN, C. J.

Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post- conviction relief. 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. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b).

We affirm.1 Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of first- degree robbery, four counts of second-degree robbery, and two counts of second-degree assault. He was sentenced pur- suant to the plea agreement to 90 months’ imprisonment and three years of post-prison supervision.

In the post-conviction court, petitioner argued that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was involuntary. He alleged that counsel failed to communicate with him about trial preparation, the evidence, and poten- tial sentences, and that he was told that if he did not plead guilty and accept a 90-month sentence, he would get 20 years. The post-conviction court rejected that claim based on the declaration of counsel and the trial court record. In Section B of the brief, petitioner reprises that claim. He also argues that the post-conviction court erroneously under- stood petitioner’s apology during sentencing as an admis- sion of guilt and relied on that misunderstanding to deny post-conviction relief.

Having reviewed the record, including the post- conviction court file and the transcript of the hearings, and having reviewed 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.