State v. Chase

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 11-02-2011
  • Case #: A143588
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J., for the Court; Sercombe, J.; & Rosenblum, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A sentence does not violate the proportionality principle of the Oregon Constitution if the defendant would not have received the base sentence for the more serious crime based on his criminal history.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of felony unlawful possession of methamphetamine and one count of misdemeanor assault. He appeals three judgments revoking probation, which resulted from a probation violation. The court sanctioned him with concurrent 60-day sentences for the methamphetamine convictions and six months of incarceration for the misdemeanor fourth-degree assault conviction. On appeal defendant argued that his sentence for the assault charge was unconstitutional under the proportionality clause of the Oregon Constitution. He argued that his sentence was disproportionate because the maximum sanction he would receive for a probation violation for felony assault was 60 days. The Court of Appeals determined that defendant had failed to prove his assertion that he would have received a lesser punishment. Due to the defendant’s criminal history, he would not have received a presumptive sentence of probation. Therefore, his revocation sanction would have been greater than 60 days. Thus, the six month sanction was not unconstitutionally disproportionate. Affirmed.

Advanced Search