糖心Vlog

The defendant, Adrian Fernandez, pleaded guilty to a first-degree felony and the trial court imposed a 20-month term of incarceration and a 36-month term of post-prison supervision. Fernandez now seeks to challenge his term of incarceration under Article I, section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, which requires penalties to be 鈥減roportioned to the offense.鈥� In response, the state argued that ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A) precludes this type of review. The Court of Appeals agreed with the state, holding that 138.105(8)(a)(A) made the sentence unreviewable.

The defendant sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 糖心Vlogof Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that applying the statute to preclude review of the defendant鈥檚 sentence would raise grave constitutional questions under Oregon鈥檚 separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.

Regarding the separation of powers guarantee found in Article III, section 1 and Article VII (Amended), section 1 of the Oregon Constitution, 138.105(8)(a)(A) substantially interferes with the Oregon judiciary鈥檚 adjudicative role. Under the state's theory, the legislature and the Criminal Justice Commission鈥攔ather than the courts鈥攈ave control over the enforcement of the constitution, which undermines the separation of powers.

Regarding the privileges and immunities guarantee found in Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, 138.105(8)(a)(A) treats similarly situated defendants differently. Two defendants could receive sentences based on convictions for comparable and/or related crimes, one of which is consistent with the presumptive sentence set by the OCJC鈥檚 guidelines and one of which is consistent with a presumptive sentence set by another body, such as the legislature. Yet only the latter defendant would be allowed to appeal their sentence, a violation of the equality guarantee.