State v. FrancisState v. Francis
Defendant appeals the sentence imposed after a judgment of conviction for murder. The trial court held that
On the evening of May 14, 1996, defendant bought beer for the victim, Wood, because the grocery clerk refused to sell alcohol to Wood. Defendant, Wood, and another man, Vermillion, then walked to a building alcove to drink. Defendant began to argue with Wood because Wood would not remove a white baseball cap he was wearing. Defendant was afraid the white cap would cause a police officer to see the trio drinking, which was a violation of defendant’s parole. Wood and defendant walked out onto the sidewalk, still arguing, and defendant stabbed Wood twice, once in the upper thigh, and once in the chest. Numerous witnesses to the crime testified at trial, and defendant was convicted of murder.
At sentencing, the state requested the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years, pursuant to
On appeal, defendant contends only that the imposition of a life sentence is inconsistent with
Morgan
and requests that his sentence be vacated. Defendant argues that a 25-year determinate sentence should be imposed, with post-prison supervision for life. The state responds that
Morgan
was overruled by the legislature when it amended
In
Morgan,
the Supreme Court held that the indeterminate life sentence for murder then provided by
After that decision, we vacated a number of life sentences and remanded for imposition of determinate terms followed by post-prison supervision for life.
See, e.g., State v. Zelinka,
Resolution of this case is a matter of statutory construction. Our goal is to discern the intent of the legislature
as expressed in
“(4)(a) A person convicted of murder shall be punished by imprisonment for life.
“(b) When a defendant is convicted of murder under this section, the court shall order that the defendant shall be confined for a minimum of 10 years without possibility of parole, release on work release or any form of temporary leave or employment at a forest or work camp.
“(c) When a defendant is convicted of murder under this section, the court, in addition to the minimum required by paragraph (b) of this section, may order that the defendant shall be confined for a minimum term of up to an additional 15 years * * *.
“(d) The minimum term set forth in paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection may be set aside by an unanimous vote of the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision.”
In Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 421, section 3, the legislature amended and renumbered the pertinent subsection of
“(5)(a) A person convicted of murder, who was at least 15 years of age at the time of committing the murder, shall be punished by imprisonment for life.
“(b) When a defendant is convicted of murder under this section, the court shall order that the defendant shall be confined for a minimum of 25 years without possibility of parole[.]”
(Emphasis supplied.) The legislature amended section (5)(a), the section that
Morgan
declared impliedly repealed.
Because we do not interpret a legislative amendment as meaningless if another reasonable construction is available, the amendment has the effect of reviving and reenacting
Affirmed.
Notes
“(1) * * * The court may impose a greater sentence if otherwise permitted by law, but may not impose a lower sentence than the sentence specified in subsection (2) of this section.
“(2) The offenses to which subsection (1) of this section applies and the applicable mandatory minimum sentences are:
“(a)(A) Murder, as defined in
The
Morgan
court suggested that a life sentence might be possible under the guidelines as an upward departure.
We have decided two cases since the 1995 amendments, namely,
State v. Cannon,