Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for the greater crime. See State v. Shumway, 291 Or 153, 164, 630 P2d 796 (1981) (applying vertical proportionality to conclude that the portion of a sentence that required the defendant to serve a minimum of 25 years before being eligible for parole was invalid under Article I, section 16, because it required a lesser minimum sentence for aggravated intentional homicide than “unaggravated” intentional homicide); State v. Dobash, 210 Or App 145, 148, 149 P3d 1235 (2006) (determining that the defendant’s sentence was not unconstitutional because the maximum sentence allowed by law for first-degree theft was at least five years’ probation, which was greater than the four years’ probation that the defendant received for second-degree theft); State v. Koch, 169 Or App 223, 7 P3d 769 (2000) (<HOLDING>). In this case, defendant maintains that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a 24month sentence for forgery unconstitutional because it exceeded the maximum sentence that the defendant could have received for a more serious forgery conviction (B) recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum (C) holding that an effective life sentence of fortyfive years for seconddegree forgery was excessive and that a life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment (D) holding statutory maximum for prior conviction is the potential maximum sentence defined by the applicable state criminal statute not the maximum sentence which could have been imposed against the particular defendant  according to the states sentencing guidelines (E) holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable
Output (English): recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum