Sexton v. Persson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 12-31-2014
  • Case #: A151067
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Tookey, J.; & Schuman, S.J.

To determine whether a sentence is constitutionally proportional under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution, a court should consider the actual sentence imposed for the offense with the maximum sentence allowed for the greater-included offense.

Defendant appealed denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant was charged with two counts of murder for killing his parents and sentenced to two life sentences with a minimum of 25 years in prison, to be served consecutively. Defendant petitioned for post-conviction relief, claiming that the consecutive sentences for murder were unconstitutionally disproportionate to the greater offense of aggravated murder. To determine whether the sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate, the Court compared the actual sentence imposed with the maximum sentence allowed for the greater offense. Since Defendant was under 18 years of age at the time of the crime, the maximum sentence he could have received for the greater offense of aggravated murder was life in prison without the possibility of parole. The post-conviction court denied the petition. Defendant appealed, and the Court held that the two murder convictions are not unconstitutionally disproportionate. Affirmed.

Advanced Search

Back to Top