ORS 137.750, in contrast, gives the sentencing court no such unbounded discretion to deny the possibility of early release. Thus, as in Dobbert and Perez , the more recent statute actually is more favorable to defendant than was the statute that was in effect at the time defendant committed his crime. ORS 137.750 certainly does not increase the quantum of punishment from what was required under Ballot Measure 40. Defendant argues that Ballot Measure 40 cannot be the reference point for determining the extent to which ORS 137.750 imposes a greater punishment, because Ballot Measure 40 was declared unconstitutional. The very same argument was raised and rejected both in Dobbert and Perez .
Defendant suggests a distinction without a difference, however.
We recognized, and adopted, the same reasoning in Perez , and we decline to reexamine it in this case. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in applying ORS 137.750. Defendant raises other assignments of error, which we reject without discussion. Return to previous location .