Sawyer v. Oregon ex rel. Huddleston

Parentheticals

• describing doctrine but concluding that it was inapposite because the sentencing guidelines and 1994 Ballot Measure 11 were not in “plain, unavoidable and irreconcilable” conflict

  State v. Vedder

• reconciling the sentencing guidelines and a separate sentencing statute, ORS 137.700

  State v. Dilts

• state could pursue mandamus remedy while also pursuing appeal, under circumstances where it was unclear whether the issue would be reviewable on appeal

  State v. Hewitt

• prior case law does not suggest “that the choice of a sentence must differ from criminal to criminal because of Article I, section 15”

  State v. Kinkel

• On "a question of federal law, we are bound by the pertinent decisions of the United States Supreme Court."

  J. M. v. Or. Youth Auth.

• mandamus remedy was available to require judge who had imposed unlawful sentence to impose lawful sentence

  Cullop v. Offender Information & Sentence Computation Center

• separation of powers may be violated when “one branch of government has unduly burdened the actions of another”

  City of Portland v. Cook

• “[C]ourts have inherent power to structure sentences in certain respects” subject to the legislature’s “‘power to declare what punishment may be assessed.’ ” (Quoting State v. Smith, 128 Or 515, 524, 273 P 323 (1929).)

  Febuary v. State of Oregon

• "`If earlier and later statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, then the earlier must yield to the later by implied repeal.'" (Quoting Anthony et al. v. Veatch et al., 189 Or. 462, 481, 220 P.2d 493 (1950).)

  Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Clackamas County

• act of determining appropriate range of criminal sentences is legislative, not judicial, function

  In re Day

• “ Tf earlier and later statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, then the earlier must yield to the later by implied repeal.’ ” (Quoting Anthony et al. v. Veatch et al., 189 Or 462, 481, 220 P2d 493 (1950).)

  Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n v. Clackamas County

• mandatory minimum sentences do not violate separation of powers

  DeMendoza v. Huffman