Case v. Cain

During sentencing, there’s a substantive requirement to consider the offender’s youth before imposing the most severe sentences. Hardegger v. Amsberry, 305 Or. App. 726, 734 (2020).

Appellant was 17 when he was convicted for aggravated murder and sentenced to serve two terms of life imprisonment for a minimum of 30 years served concurrently. Appellant assigned error to the post-conviction court’s grant of summary judgment. On appeal, Appellant argued that his sentence was in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and that that claim was not untimely under ORS 138.510(3). Appellant argued that his sentence was cruel and unusual, and that it was a timely claim based on the retroactive constitutional right not being available until after the Appellant’s ability for direct appeal and post-conviction relief had expired. In response, Respondent argued that retroactive application had a procedural basis rather than substantive basis, and that even if there was retroactive application, the statutory sentencing scheme cured any violation through providing the petitioner an opportunity for release as required in the federal constitution. During sentencing, there’s a substantive requirement to consider the offender’s youth before imposing the most severe sentences. Hardegger v. Amsberry, 305 Or. App. 726, 734 (2020). The Court held that because Appellant’s sentence under ORS 163.105(1)(c) violated the Eighth Amendment, Appellant was entitled to retroactive relief. Reversed and remanded.