State v. Lara-Vasquez

A punishment which is so disproportionate to the offense as to “shock the moral sense of reasonable people” violates Article I, section 16. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009). Courts consider three factors when determining disproportionality: (1) severity of penalty versus gravity of offense; (2) “penalties imposed for other, related crimes”; and (3) criminal history of the defendant. Id.

The trial court sentenced Defendant to 18 months in prison for first-degree sexual abuse; the trial court determined that the 75-month sentence required by Measure 11 violated Article I, section 16.  Both the State and Defendant appealed.  The State argued that the trial court erred because the 75-month sentence did not violate Article I, section 16.  Defendant asserted that the 18-month sentence was correct, but the indeterminate post-prison supervision was improper.  A punishment which is so disproportionate to the offense as to “shock the moral sense of reasonable people” violates Article I, section 16.  State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 217 P3d 659 (2009).  Courts consider three factors when determining disproportionality: (1) severity of penalty versus gravity of offense; (2) “penalties imposed for other, related crimes”; and (3) criminal history of the defendant.  Id.  The Court compared Defendant’s acts to facts of other cases in which the required 75-month sentence was held not disproportionate and found the penalty, although harsh, was not disproportionate to Defendant’s actions.  The Court was not convinced Defendant’s punishment was disproportionate because more serious offenses carried the same penalty.  Nor was the Court persuaded Defendant’s lack of criminal history made the punishment disproportionate.  Thus, the Court held the sentence did not violate Article I, section 16.  Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.