- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Constitutional Law
- Date Filed: 04-17-2019
- Case #: A163518
- Judge(s)/Court Below: James, J. for the Court; DeVore, P.J.; & Tookey, J. dissenting.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a conviction of multiple felony counts for aggravated murder. Defendant assigned error to the imposition of a life sentence on Count 4. Defendant argued that the sentence structure for juveniles under ORS 163.105-163.150 was improper because it violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution, asserting that the sentencing did not take into account the offender's age or age-related characteristics or circumstances. In response, the State argued that Defendant's cited cases only applied to death and life without parole sentences, and that the life sentence imposed on a juvenile was given a murder review hearing 30 years after the sentence, creating a sufficient procedural safeguard to render ORS 163.105 constitutional. "The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible material is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult," therefore, “[f]rom a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed." Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551, 570, 125 S Ct 1183 (2005). The Court held that, even in light of Measure 11, the hearing provided by ORS 163.105 does not provide the meaningful consideration of the unique qualities of youth that might make the "irresponsible conduct" of a juvenile offender "not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult," in part because review 30 years after the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Sentence on Count 4 vacated; remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed.