Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on review, v. GILBERT CLARENCE BROWN, Petitioner on review
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1984-02-15
Citations: 296 Or. 458
Docket Number: CR 82-6-70; CR 82-6-81, CA A27072, SC S30003
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on review, v. GILBERT CLARENCE BROWN, Petitioner on review.
Judges: JONES, J.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 296
Pages: 458–460

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 26,
affirmed February 15, 1984
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on review, v. GILBERT CLARENCE BROWN, Petitioner on review.
(CR 82-6-70; CR 82-6-81, CA A27072, SC S30003)
676 P2d 877
Marilyn C. McManus, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. On the petition and brief were Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Williams, Deputy Public Defender, Salem.
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Sally Leisure, Special Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
JONES, J.

Opinion:
JONES, J.
The defendant in this case was convicted of two counts of sodomy in the first degree. He was sentenced to two 20-year terms of imprisonment with a five-year minimum term of imprisonment on each count to run consecutively with each other and consecutively with the sentences imposed in the companion case, State v. Brown, 296 Or 461, 676 P2d 877 (1984). The net effect of the sentences arising from both cases is that the defendant was sentenced for a total of 60 years' imprisonment with 15 years minimum imposed under ORS 144.110(1). He challenges the minimum terms imposed.
We restricted review in this case and the companion case, State v. Brown, supra, to the issue of whether the minimum sentences imposed under ORS 144.110(1) violated the proportionality requirement of the general purpose of our criminal code, ORS 161.025; Article I, Section 16, of the Oregon Constitution; or the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They do not. See, State v. Turner, 296 Or 451, 676 P2d 873 (1984).
We affirm the Court of Appeals.