State v. Fudge

“The court in Davidson expressly relied on ORS 137.669 and ORS 137.637 for the proposition that the guidelines ‘determine the sentence for any offense not otherwise provided for by a statute that calls for a longer sentence’”. State v. Davidson, 369 Or 480, 486 (2022).

Defendant appealed a sentencing judgement on his conviction for first-degree sodomy, under ORS 163.405, for the third time. Defendant assigned error to the trial court arguing they lacked the statutory authority to impose a 200 month sentence, and alternatively that the sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate as applied to Defendant. Defendant further argues that because the statute only allows for the one sentence of 300 months, the Court must follow the Oregon felony sentencing guidelines. The state responded that the guidelines are not the proper authority in this case, and that ORS 137.700(2)(b)(E) authorizes the 200 month sentence. “The court in Davidson expressly relied on ORS 137.669 and ORS 137.637 for the proposition that the guidelines ‘determine the sentence for any offense not otherwise provided for by a statute that calls for a longer sentence’”. State v. Davidson, 369 Or 480, 486 (2022). The Court reasoned that Davidson is the controlling case, and further reasoned that because ORS 137.700 only authorizes one sentence and because that sentence was held unconstitutional as applied to the Defendant, the guidelines provide the appropriate authority for sentencing. Therefore, the case is remanded for resentencing and otherwise affirmed.