"We address proportionality challenges under Article I, section 16, using the factors set out in Rodriguez/ Buck, which penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.'" State v. McCombs, 330 Or.App. 545, 563-64, 544 P.3d 390 (2024) (quoting State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or. 46, 58, 217 P.3d 659 (2009)). We are unpersuaded that defendant's sentence violates Article I, section 16.

State v. McCombs, Joshua Terrell Green (A175889) (330 Or.App. 545) PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

STATE v. MCCOMBS, Joshua Terrell Green (330 Or App 545) Review Denied

Although preservation is disputed by the parties, even assuming defendant adequately preserved his argument for appellate review, we reject it on the merits. Defendant acknowledges that we have previously rejected disproportionality challenges to sentences under ORS 137.700(2)(b) and ORS 144.103(2), which provide for a mandatory 300-month sentence and lifetime PPS for convictions of, among other crimes, first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy where the victim is under 12 years of age.See, e.g., State v. McCombs, 330 Or.App. 545, 544 P.3d 390, rev den, 372 Or. 718 (2024); State v. Hoover, 250 Or.App. 504, 280 P.3d 1061, rev den, 352 Or. 564 (2012); State v. Alwinger, 236 Or.App. 240, 236 P.3d 755 (2010). Defendant's arguments do not persuade us that those cases were wrongly decided.

"We review a trial court's denial of an MJOA to determine whether, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. McCombs, 330 Or.App. 545, 558, 544 P.3d 390, rev den, 372 Or. 718 (2024) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his MJOA because the state failed to prove the element of forcible compulsion. "We review a trial court's denial of an MJOA to determine whether, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. McCombs, 330 Or.App. 545, 558, 544 P.3d 390, rev den, 372 Or. 718 (2024) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).