State v. Shannon
| Decision Date | 19 January 1966 |
| Citation | 242 Or. 404,409 P.2d 911,82 Or.Adv.Sh. 69 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Robert James SHANNON, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert James Shannon, in pro. per.
No appearance for respondent.
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary not in a dwelling, and appeals from a sentence to the penitentiary for a term not to exceed 10 years, the maximum provided by the applicable statute, ORS 164.240.
The defendant contends that he was not the principal actor in the perpetration of the crime, but only an accomplice, and that imposition of the maximum sentence violated Article I, Section 15, of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that laws for the punishment of crime 'shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice.'
After a plea of guilty, the only question which may be considered on appeal is whether 'an excessive fine or excessive, cruel or unusual punishment not proportionate to the offense has been imposed.' ORS 138.050; State v. Jairl, 229 Or. 533, 541-542, 368 P.2d 323 (1962).
Our statutes, ORS 161.210 and 161.220, have eliminated the common law distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, and provide that all persons concerned in the commission of a crime are principals. There is consequently no merit in defendant's contention.
This court should not modify the sentence imposed by the trial court unless it clearly appears that the sentence was the result of improper motives, or was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience of fair-minded men. State v. Montgomery, 237 Or. 593, 392 P.2d 642 (1964); see also, State v. Harp, 239 Or. 481, 398 P.2d 182 (1965). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed by the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Or. v. Lopez-minjarez
...which is merely a means of imposing criminal liability on one person for the conduct of another. 3The commission cited State v. Shannon, 242 Or. 404, 409 P.2d 911 (1966); State v. Blackwell, 241 Or. 528, 407 P.2d 617 (1965); State v. Moczygemba, 234 Or. 141, 379 P.2d 557 (1963); State v. Br......
-
State v. Olson
...witness fees, the cost of appointed counsel, and a "prevailing fee" allegedly authorized by ORS 20.070.2 ORS 138.050; State v. Shannon, 242 Or. 404, 409 P.2d 911 (1960); State v. Jairl, 229 Or. 533, 368 P.2d 323 (1962).3 "(1) The court may require a convicted defendant to pay costs."(2) Cos......
-
State v. Gabie
...not modify the sentence unless it was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience of fair-minded men. State v. Shannon, 242 Or. 404, 409 P.2d 911; State v. Harp, 239 Or. 481, 398 P.2d 182 (1965); State v. Clark, 237 Or. 596, 392 P.2d 643 (1964); State v. Montgomery, 237 Or......
-
State v. Chilton
...the sentence unless it was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience of fair-minded men. State v. Shannon, (242 Or. 404) 82 Or.Adv.Sh. 69, 409 P.2d 911; State v. Harp, 239 Or. 481, 398 P.2d 182 (1965); State v. Clark, 237 Or. 596, 392 P.2d 643 (1964); State v. Montgomery......