Sawyer v. Oregon ex rel. Huddleston

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 | 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).) | "`If earlier and later statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, then the earlier must yield to the later by implied repeal.'" (Quoting Anthony et al. v. Veatch et al., 189 Or. 462, 481, 220 P.2d 493 (1950).) | act of determining appropriate range of criminal sentences is legislative, not judicial, function | “ Tf earlier and later statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, then the earlier must yield to the later by implied repeal.’ ” (Quoting Anthony et al. v. Veatch et al., 189 Or 462, 481, 220 P2d 493 (1950).) | mandatory minimum sentences do not violate separation of powers | “Laws involving classifications [of persons] created by statute ‘are entitled to no special protection and, in fact, are not even considered to be classes for the purposes of Article I, section 20.’ Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or 387, 397, 788 P2d 435, cert den, 498 US 819 (1990).” | repeal by implication is disfavored