State v. Buckendahl

A legislatively specified penalty violates the proportionality clause of Article I, section 16, if the penalty shocks the moral sense of reasonable people because the penalty is so disproportionate when compared to the offense. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009). Three non-exhaustive factors that bear on that determination are “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009).

Defendant was convicted for one count of first-degree sexual abuse under ORS 163.427. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s assignment of a mandatory 75-month sentence under ORS 137.700(2)(a)(P). On appeal, Defendant argued that under the circumstances - his lack of criminal history alongside his conduct of touching the victim’s leg - the legislatively prescribed sentence was disproportionate under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. A legislatively specified penalty violates the proportionality clause of Article I, section 16, if the penalty shocks the moral sense of reasonable people because the penalty is so disproportionate when compared to the offense. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009). Three non-exhaustive factors that bear on that determination are “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58 (2009). The Court held that Defendant’s case did not fit the rare circumstance that would conclude the statutory sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate. The Court reasoned that although Defendant had prior professional discipline for inappropriate conduct, the Defendant continued to engage in said inappropriate conduct. Affirmed.