State v. Pearson

                                228

            Submitted February 11, affirmed March 9, 2022


                STATE OF OREGON,
                 Plaintiff-Respondent,
                           v.
         CHAD SAMUEL WILLIAM PEARSON,
                Defendant-Appellant.
           Clackamas County Circuit Court
                 17CR81780; A173796
                            

   Ann M. Lininger, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Daniel C. Bennett, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Chad Pearson filed the supplemental brief pro se.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jon Zunkel-Decoursey, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before James, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2022)                               229

         PER CURIAM
         Defendant raises numerous assignments of error,
as well as pro se assignments of error, challenging the trial
court’s denial of his repeated motions to withdraw his plea.
Defendant’s appellate arguments are foreclosed by State
v. Clark, 

, 

 (2021), and State v.
Merrill, 

, 

 (2021), opinion
adh’d to as modified on recons, 

, 

(2021).
         Defendant’s fourth assignment of error challenges
the imposition of a life sentence, pursuant to ORS 137.719,
arguing that such a sentence is disproportionate in violation of Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. We
review questions of sentence proportionality under Article I,
section 16, for legal errors. State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 

, 

 (2009).
         Article I, section 16, provides that “all penalties
shall be proportioned to the offense.” We consider three nonexclusive factors in determining whether a sentence is constitutionally proportionate to the offense: (1) how the severity of the penalty compares to the gravity of the offense;
(2) how the penalties for other, related offenses compare to
the instant penalty imposed; and (3) the defendant’s criminal history. Rodriguez/Buck, 

. When considering the proportionality of a penalty under a recidivist statute like ORS 137.719, the first and third factors “overlap in
comparing the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the
crimes that gave rise to the … sentence.” State v. Althouse,

, 

 (2016).
         Neither a detailed recitation of the facts of this case,
nor defendant’s criminal history, would benefit the bench or
bar. However, upon review of each, and in consideration of
the arguments raised on appeal, we cannot conclude that
the sentence imposed here was disproportionate in violation
of Article I, section 16.
         Affirmed.