State v. Gross

No. 244 April 1, 2026 155 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. RICKEY GLENN GROSS II, Defendant-Appellant.

Douglas County Circuit Court 22CR50339, 24CR65310; A186608 (Control), A186604 Robert B. Johnson, Judge.

Submitted February 13, 2026.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Peter Klym, 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.

156 State v. Gross LAGESEN, C. J.

In these two consolidated cases, defendant appeals judgments of conviction entered after defendant pleaded no contest. 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 each of the two cases, defendant pleaded no con- test to one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle. In Case No. 22CR50339, defendant was sentenced to a stipulated sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment followed by 12 months’ post-prison supervision and a one-year license suspension.

In Case No. 24CR65310, he was sentenced to a stipulated 24 months’ imprisonment with 12 months’ post-prison supervi- sion and a one-year license suspension. The sentences are concurrent.

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[.]”); ORS 138.105(9) (“The appellate court has no authority to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentenc- ing agreement between the state and the defendant.”).

Affirmed.

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