Standards for sentencing of dangerous offenders
Source:
Section 161.725 — Standards for sentencing of dangerous offenders, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statutes (ORS 137.111 to 137.115)
Procedures for sentencing did not amount to a denial of equal protection because they were different from the mental commitment procedures. DeBolt v. Cupp, 19 Or App 545, 528 P2d 601 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
In general
Since this section does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of dangerous offender status, evidence that defendant entertained sexual fantasies of rape, and that he had prior convictions for forcible sex offenses, was sufficient to show that he was “suffering from severe personality disorder indicating propensity toward criminal activity.” State v. Sanders, 35 Or App 503, 582 P2d 22 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
This section does not conflict with ORS 426.675 because it provides for magnified sentence of incarceration for dangerous offender as means of preventing individual from inflicting future harm, while ORS 426.675 authorizes treatment program for sexually dangerous person during incarceration. State v. Sanders, 35 Or App 503, 582 P2d 22 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Legislative intent of this section was not that first offender receive enhanced penalty because accomplice had previously been convicted. State v. Hicks, 38 Or App 97, 589 P2d 1130 (1979)
It was proper for trial court to apply this section to extend maximum period of commitment of defendant to jurisdiction of Psychiatric Security Review Board. State v. Carrol, 54 Or App 445, 635 P2d 17 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
Whether felony for which defendant is being sentenced seriously endangered the life or safety of another is determined by actual circumstances, not elements defining felony. State v. Allen, 68 Or App 5, 680 P2d 997 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Argument by defendant that trial court lacked authority to impose minimum sentence after sentencing him as dangerous offender under this section was without merit. State v. Downs, 69 Or App 556, 686 P2d 1041 (1984)
Where sentence imposed under this section is for felony conviction, ORS 144.110 allows imposition of minimum term of imprisonment. State v. Turner, 296 Or 451, 676 P2d 873 (1984)
Whether defendant is suffering from “severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity” is determination to be made by court upon consideration of psychiatric report, presentence report and evidence in case or that presented at presentence hearing. State v. Huntley, 302 Or 418, 730 P2d 418 (1986)
Although trial court is required to order psychiatric examination of defendant under ORS 161.735 (1), court is not bound by conclusions of any psychotherapist but is required by statute to make its own findings as to whether defendant is suffering from severe personality disorder with propensity toward criminal activity. State v. Huntley, 302 Or 418, 730 P2d 1234 (1986)
While court must consider psychiatric report, statute does not require that psychiatrist make finding of dangerousness or severe personality disorder. State v. Huntley, 302 Or 418, 730 P2d 1234 (1986); State v. Trice, 146 Or App 15, 933 P2d 345 (1997)
Language of this section requiring that court find defendant is suffering from severe personality disorder indicating a propensity toward criminal activity means a finding that defendant is suffering from a severe mental or emotional disorder indicating propensity toward continuing dangerous criminal activity. State v. Huntley, 302 Or 418, 730 P2d 1234 (1986)
Where court found that defendant was dangerous offender under standards of this section, fact that defendant was also psychotic did not render statute inapplicable. State v. Nickell, 302 Or 439, 730 P2d 1246 (1986)
If person is only psychotic and does not also suffer from severe personality disorder accompanied by propensity to commit future criminal acts, fact that psychotic offender might be dangerous would not bring him within this statute. State v. Nickell, 302 Or 439, 730 P2d 1246 (1986)
Minimum sentence under ORS 161.725 for person suffering severe personality disorder is not cruel and unusual punishment of person for suffering disorder, but reflects legislative recognition that having disorder makes person more likely to commit dangerous crimes and less amenable to rehabilitation. State v. Caughey, 89 Or App 605, 750 P2d 511 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
This section does not authorize penalty in addition to that imposed for underlying offense, it only authorizes enhanced sentence in lieu of that otherwise authorized for particular crime. State v. Burr, 90 Or App 338, 752 P2d 330 (1988)
For purpose of imposition of dangerous offender sanctions, this section relates to nature of crime for which defendant is sentenced and not to nature of defendant’s involvement. State v. Mastne/Passer, 91 Or App 31, 754 P2d 4 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
Where court considered “report” under ORS 161.735 that defendant was uncooperative and that psychiatric analysis could not be made and observed defendant and heard evidence, including description of defendant’s conduct during criminal episode, there was sufficient evidence to support finding that defendant is dangerous offender under this section. State v. Pryor, 96 Or App 181, 772 P2d 431 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
After finding defendant is dangerous offender under this section and ORS 161.735, sentencing court may not sentence defendant to determinate term under ORS 137.635. State v. Reese, 114 Or App 557, 836 P2d 737 (1992)
Where trial court found defendant was dangerous offender suffering from severe personality disorder indicating propensity towards criminal activity, and dangerousness of defendant required extended incarceration for protection of public, these findings taken together are sufficient to support conclusion defendant is dangerous offender. State v. Odoms, 117 Or App 1, 844 P2d 217 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Where 30-year dangerous offender sentence exceeded prescribed statutory maximum sentence, imposition of dangerous offender sentence based on finding of fact by court violated defendant’s federal constitutional right to have fact proved to jury beyond reasonable doubt. State v. Warren, 195 Or App 656, 98 P3d 1129 (2004), Sup Ct review denied
Waiver of right to jury trial on underlying charge is not waiver of right to have jury determine whether defendant is dangerous offender for sentencing purposes. State v. Williams, 197 Or App 21, 104 P3d 1151 (2005)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: O’Neal v. Cupp, 6 Or App 91, 485 P2d 1119 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date