State v. Rorie

No. 241 April 1, 2026 149 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. LOGAN WILLIAM RORIE, Defendant-Appellant.

Lincoln County Circuit Court 22CR06204, 24CR34957; A185458 (Control), A185459 Amanda R. Benjamin, Judge.

Submitted February 13, 2026.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Shawn Wiley, 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.

150 State v. Rorie LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals judgments of conviction entered after defendant pleaded guilty in Case No. 22CR06204 (the 2022 case) to two counts of third-degree sexual abuse and two counts of furnishing alcohol to a minor, and in Case No. 24CR34957 (the 2024 case) to one count of second-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 in the 2022 case with four sexual offenses involving minor girls and with providing marijuana and alcohol to them. Defendant pleaded guilty to the four charges mentioned above, the remaining charges were dismissed on the state’s motion, and defendant began a stipulated downward departure sentence of probation as part of a District Attorney diversion agreement. In 2024 defen- dant was charged with new, more serious crimes, including first-degree sodomy, second-degree sexual abuse, and first- degree rape. As part of a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree sexual abuse and the remain- ing charges were dismissed. The District Attorney’s office terminated diversion in the 2022 case and defendant was sentenced to 60 months’ probation in the 2024 case. After diversion was terminated, defendant was sentenced to pro- bation with a 60-day jail sanction in the 2022 case.

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. See ORS 138.105(5) (“The appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest[.]”).

Affirmed.

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