holding that Measure 11 did not repeal the sentencing guidelines by implication because they “can be harmonized to give effect to both”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Measure 11 did not repeal the sentencing guidelines by implication because they “can be harmonized to give effect to both”
- noting that the Supreme Court “has held that courts need specific statutory authority to impose a sentence of imprisonment”
- determining that Measure 11 does not violate separation of powers principles in Article III, section 1, and Article VII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution
- explaining that a prosecutor’s ability to charge crimes carrying a mandatory minimum sentence did not violate separation of powers principles
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FADELEY, J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent in part and do so by joining only the dissenting portion of Justice Durham’s separate opinion.