State v. Fudge

When a defendant shows, on the record, that they have an intellectual disability, the trial court must expressly consider the “constitutional implications” the disability may have in the determination of a constitutionally just penalty. State v. Ryan, 361 Or 602, 624, 396 P3d 867 (2017).

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s imposition of a statutory minimum three-hundred-month sentence for the charge of first-degree sodomy. Defendant assigned error to the trial court enforcing the minimum sentence, despite evidence of Defendant’s severe intellectual disability. On appeal, Defendant argued that, under Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 16 and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the three-hundred-month penalty was unconstitutional compared to the severity of the crime when his disability was taken into consideration. Inresponse, the State argued that Defendant’s on-the-record statements acknowledging the wrongfulness of the crime showed he understood that what he did was wrong; therefore, making the sentence constitutional. When a defendant shows, on the record, that they have an intellectual disability, the trial court must expressly consider the “constitutional implications” the disability may have in the determination of a constitutionally just penalty. State v. Ryan, 361 Or 602, 624, 396 P3d 867 (2017). The Court held that the trial court’s brief acknowledgement of Defendant’s disability was not enough to clearly demonstrate that it had considered the constitutional implications of Defendant’s disability in relation to the determination of his sentence. Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.