State v. Gonzalez

To determine whether sentencing is proportional, courts examine “(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, 217 P3d 659 (2009).

The State appealed a sentencing judgment that decreased Defendant’s sentence for first-degree arson. Under Ballot Measure 11, the mandatory minimum sentencing for first-degree arson is 90 months. However, at trial, Defendant argued that the sentence applied to her was unconstitutionally disproportionate. The trial court agreed and lessened Defendant’s sentence to 60 months’ probation. The State assigned error to this determination. On appeal, the State argued that the court did not analyze proportionality properly when considering certain facts. In response, Defendant asserted that the circumstances used by the court to determine proportionality were proper. To determine whether sentencing is proportional, courts examine “(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, 217 P3d 659 (2009). When applying the first factor to Defendant’s circumstances, the Court found that the punishment for first-degree arson is severe (90 months of imprisonment imposes a substantial deprivation of liberty on an individual) and that the crime was grave (the fire she started put herself and five others in danger and caused injury to herself and others). The Court noted that Defendant did not argue the second factor of the proportionality test applied. However, the State argued that Defendant could have received a sentence of 116 to 120 months based on her crime. Concerning the third factor, the Court found that while Defendant had no prior criminal history, the fact was not determinative of proportionality. The Court held that the sentence imposed by statute was not disproportionately unconstitutional as applied to Defendant because her crime was grave, she caused significant harm, and she could have been sentenced to more than 90 months. Reversed and remanded.