State v. Budden — Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed probation revocation after Balfour review

Case
State of Oregon v. Christian Michael Budden
Court
Oregon Court of Appeals
Judge
Lagesen, Chief Judge; Egan, Judge
Date Decided
October 7, 2026
Docket No.
A186501
Topics
Criminal Appeals, Probation Revocation, Balfour Review
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

In July 2012, Christian Michael Budden pleaded guilty to third-degree rape and received a stipulated sentence of 60 months’ probation. In April 2014, the trial court issued a show-cause order alleging three probation violations and issued a warrant for his arrest.

The court held the show-cause hearing in November 2024, more than 10 years after issuing the order. The opinion notes that the timing resulted from several circumstances, including Budden’s absconding from supervision. Budden admitted that he had failed to report to his probation officer as required.

Based on that admission, the trial court revoked probation and imposed two months’ incarceration, with credit for time served, followed by 24 months’ post-prison supervision. An amended judgment stated, as stipulated by the parties and provided by ORS 163A.140, that Budden was not required to register as a sex offender.

The Court’s Holding

Budden appealed the revocation judgment. His appointed counsel filed a brief under ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, and the brief contained no Section B identifying issues raised by Budden.

After reviewing the record, including the trial court file, hearing transcripts, and the Balfour brief, and accounting for the limits on its review under ORS 138.105, the Oregon Court of Appeals found no arguably meritorious issues. It therefore affirmed the judgment.

Key Takeaways

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment revoking Budden’s probation and imposing incarceration and post-prison supervision.
  • The appeal proceeded through a Balfour brief without a Section B presenting issues from Budden.
  • The decision is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and generally may not be cited except as that rule permits.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the disposition of an Oregon criminal appeal following Balfour review when appointed counsel identifies no nonfrivolous issue and the defendant supplies no Section B. The court independently reviewed the specified materials and concluded that no arguably meritorious issue existed.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top