State v. Gardner-Rolph, 345 Ore. App. 681 (Or. Ct. App. 2025)

The Oregon Court of Appeals examined a state sentencing statute that prohibits juvenile life without parole sentences (ORS 161.740) and held that it applies when an individual is convicted in adult court and sentenced for an offense committed when they were under the age of 18 if the sentence was imposed on or after January 1, 2020.  The court stated in relevant part:

“ORS 161.740 “appl[ies] to sentences imposed on or after January 1, 2020,” Or Laws 2019, ch 634, § 32, for convictions in adult criminal court. The text of ORS 161.740(1) provides that a court may not impose a life sentence “on a person who was under 18 years of age at the time of committing the offense.” ORS 161.740(2) provides that in sentencing “a person who was under 18 years of age at the time of committing the offense,” the court “shall consider” the circumstances enumerated in the statute as well as “any other relevant circumstances.” Separately, ORS 419C.005 provides that “[t]he juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction in any case involving a person who is under 18 years of age and who has committed an act that is a violation * * *.” Thus, when ORS 161.740 is read in context, it governs sentencing if (1) the offense was committed when the defendant was under 18 years of age, (2) the defendant was convicted in adult court, either because the defendant was over 18 years of age when indicted or because the defendant was waived into adult court pursuant to ORS 419C.349, and (3) the sentence was imposed on or after January 1, 2020.

. . . .

That legislative history makes clear that the enacting body regarded SB 1008 as implementing fundamental changes to the legal code regarding violative conduct that occurred before an individual reached 18 years of age, requiring a significantly greater focus on brain science and development, nuanced understanding of culpability, likelihood of rehabilitation and treatment efficacy, and offender accountability, while deemphasizing mandatory punishment. The legislative history confirms what our textual analysis strongly supports—that ORS 161.740 was intended to displace the OCJC presumptive sentences.

. . . .

Because defendant was sentenced for offenses committed when he was under 18 years of age; he was convicted in adult criminal court; and the sentence was imposed on or after January 1, 2020, the sentence should have been imposed under ORS 161.740.”