State v. Wimberly

No. 242 April 1, 2026 151 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. WILLIAM JAMES WIMBERLY, JR., aka William Wimberly, aka William J. Wimberly, aka William J. Wimberly, Jr., aka William James Wimberly, Defendant-Appellant.

Multnomah County Circuit Court 17CR15258, 19CR42505, 20CR04624, 22CR26450, 23CR21863; A185514 (Control), A185569, A185570, A185571, A185572 Steffan Alexander, Judge.

Submitted February 13, 2026.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Daniel Bennett, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.

152 State v. Wimberly LAGESEN, C. J.

In these five consolidated cases, defendant appeals judgments of conviction and a judgment revoking probation and sentencing him to 20 months’ imprisonment. 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 Case No. 17CR15258, defendant was on pro- bation for one count of public indecency. In that case, the trial court ordered defendant to show cause why his pro- bation should not be revoked. In Case Nos. 19CR42505, 20CR04624, 22CR26450 and 23CR21863 defendant was charged with new counts of felony public indecency. In Case No. 19CR42505 defendant was additionally charged with one count of third-degree sexual abuse. Ultimately, defen- dant pleaded guilty to the charges in those cases. In the pro- bation case, defendant stipulated that he had violated his probation, and the court imposed 20 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in Case Nos. 19CR42505, 20CR04624, 22CR26450 and 23CR21863.

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.