Sawyer v. Oregon ex rel. Huddleston

How later courts describe this case

• 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
• reconciling the sentencing guidelines and a separate sentencing statute, ORS 137.700
• state could pursue mandamus remedy while also pursuing appeal, under circumstances where it was unclear whether the issue would be reviewable on appeal
• On "a question of federal law, we are bound by the pertinent decisions of the United States Supreme Court."
• prior case law does not suggest “that the choice of a sentence must differ from criminal to criminal because of Article I, section 15”
• mandamus remedy was available to require judge who had imposed unlawful sentence to impose lawful sentence
• separation of powers may be violated when “one branch of government has unduly burdened the actions of another”
• “[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).)