
State of Oregon v. Adrian Fernandez
What's at Stake
This case asks if ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A)—which removes an appellate court’s authority to review a “sentence that is within the presumptive sentence prescribed by the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”—precludes appellate review of a state constitutional challenge to a within-guidelines criminal sentence. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of defendant Fernandez, who seeks to challenge his sentence under the Oregon Constitution’s proportionality guarantee. The amicus brief argues that interpreting the statute to preclude review of Fernandez’s challenge would raise grave constitutional concerns under Oregon’s separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.
Summary
The defendant, Adrian Fernandez, pleaded guilty to a first-degree felony and the trial court imposed a 20-month term of incarceration and a 36-month term of post-prison supervision. Fernandez now seeks to challenge his term of incarceration under Article I, section 16 of the Oregon Constitution, which requires penalties to be “proportioned to the offense.” In response, the state argued that ORS 138.105(8)(a)(A) precludes this type of review. The Court of Appeals agreed with the state, holding that 138.105(8)(a)(A) made the sentence unreviewable.
The defendant sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that applying the statute to preclude review of the defendant’s sentence would raise grave constitutional questions under Oregon’s separation of powers and privileges and immunities doctrines.
Regarding the separation of powers guarantee found in Article III, section 1 and Article VII (Amended), section 1 of the Oregon Constitution, 138.105(8)(a)(A) substantially interferes with the Oregon judiciary’s adjudicative role. Under the state's theory, the legislature and the Criminal Justice Commission—rather than the courts—have control over the enforcement of the constitution, which undermines the separation of powers.
Regarding the privileges and immunities guarantee found in Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, 138.105(8)(a)(A) treats similarly situated defendants differently. Two defendants could receive sentences based on convictions for comparable and/or related crimes, one of which is consistent with the presumptive sentence set by the OCJC’s guidelines and one of which is consistent with a presumptive sentence set by another body, such as the legislature. Yet only the latter defendant would be allowed to appeal their sentence, a violation of the equality guarantee.
Legal Documents
-
01/29/2025
Amicus Brief
Date Filed: 01/29/2025
Affiliate: Oregon
Download Document