State v. Miller

Under the holding of State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 217 P3d 659 (2009), a punishment may be declared unconstitutional if it is so disproportionate when compared to the offense so as to "shock the moral sense" of reasonable people.

Defendant appealed the sentencing delivered on ten counts of delivery, possession, and manufacture of methamphetamine.  Defendant assigned error to the court's sentence length on the theory of "sentence entrapment."  Defendant contended that the mandatory minimum sentences were unconstitutionally disproportionate under Article I section 16, of the Oregon Constitution, because she was "pushed into" committing the offenses by a police informant and was only predisposed to committing the lesser offenses without the entrapment, claiming that the sentencing would therefore be unconstitutionally disproportionate.  Under the holding of State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 217 P3d 659 (2009), a punishment may be declared unconstitutional if it is so disproportionate when compared to the offense so as to "shock the moral sense" of reasonable people.  The Court noted that there was nothing in Rodriguez/Buck that would suggest that a person's motivation for committing a crime would be relevant to Article I, section 16.  Similarly, the Court noted that defendant did not demonstrate that her conduct was less culpable relative to other people who commit the same crime.  Lastly, the Court noted that defendant did not show that the penalties imposed on her for the crimes committed in fact were unconstitutionally disproportionate.  Affirmed.