State v. Wilson, 259 P.3d 1004

Defendant Wilson was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse involving a 4-year-old girl.
He was 19 at the time, lived with the victim and her family, and had a trusted role (often babysitting).
Evidence showed he touched the victim’s vaginal area with his fingers inside her underwear and told her the conduct was 'ok'.
Trial court found Wilson appreciated the criminality of his conduct, denying mental-competency defenses.
Sentencing under Measure 11 imposed a 75-month term; court expressed reluctance but said it had no discretion.
On appeal, defendant argued the court failed to consider diminished capacity in the proportionality analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can mental capacity be considered in Article I, section 16 disproportionality analysis?	Wilson argues Rodriguez/Buck requires consideration of diminished capacity.	State contends capacity is not a required factor and the court did not err in focusing on conduct.	Yes; capacity may be considered in proportionality analysis.
Did the trial court actually consider diminished capacity in sentencing?	Wilson asserts the court failed to properly factor diminished capacity into the decision.	State contends the court weighed relevant factors including capacity.	Court’s reasoning insufficiently clear; remand for clarification.
Should the case be remanded for clarifying the trial court’s reasoning?	Ambiguity in the court’s remarks requires review.	No need for remand if capacity was appropriately considered.	Remanded for resentencing to clarify whether diminished capacity affected the decision.

State v. Rodriguez-Buck, 347 Or. 46 (Or. 2009) (proportionality under Measure 11 and factors for constitutional review)