Opinion ID: 1167671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We consider it appropriate to review the sentencing issue in conjunction with the same issue in State v. Crotsley , also decided today.

Text: That this case is announced together with State v. Crotsley, supra , is a fortuity. Review in this case was not allowed for the purpose of creating a decisional companion to Crotsley. In fact, this court allowed review in Crotsley, a case in which the error argued to us had also been argued below, after review had been allowed in this case, and to address an entirely different issue  the meaning of ORS 161.062 and 161.067. [1] The reference to Crotsley disguises the majority's actual purpose in this case, viz., correction of an error the majority apparently considers too serious to let pass. We have the power to correct error (if any there be) in such circumstances; I would be the last to deny it. Neither would I deny that the exercise of that power is, ultimately, a question committed to the conscience of each of us. But the fact that the power belongs to each one of us does not relieve us from the obligation to exercise it in a principled way. If the majority would honestly own up to the fact that what is involved here, from its point of view, is a disagreement as to when that power should be exercised, the casual reader of the case at least could see where the majority got off track.