State v. COLMENARES-CHAVEZ, 260 P.3d 667

Gas-station robbery incidents in July 2007: defendant arrived with three others, demanded gas and money, later returned with gun and accomplice to steal approx. $900.
Defendant was charged with one count of first-degree robbery and two counts of second-degree robbery; trial evidence tied all counts to the same incident, with two theories for second-degree robbery.
Trial court indicated the verdicts would merge, but the judgment stated they would not merge.
On appeal, defendant challenged merger of the two second-degree robbery verdicts and merger of first-degree with second-degree verdicts.
The court analyzed merger under ORS 161.067(1) and reviewed related White framework to determine statutory provisions and separate offenses.
Convictions on counts 2 and 3 (second-degree robberies) were reversed and remanded for a single conviction reflecting both theories; remanded for resentencing; counts otherwise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two second-degree robbery verdicts merge	State contends two second-degree robberies are separate offenses	Colmenares-Chavez argues no merger under ORS 161.067(1)	Yes; merger required for two second-degree robberies
Whether first-degree robbery merges with second-degree robberies	State argues distinct statutory provisions; no merger	Colmenares-Chavez argues they are same offense	No; first-degree robbery not merged with second-degree robbersies

State v. White, 346 Or. 275 (2009) (merger of second-degree robbery verdicts; distinct statutory provisions; structure of robbery is incrementally graded)
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or. 634 (2001) (alternative grounds not preserved may not be used for affirmance)
State v. Parkins, 346 Or. 333 (2009) (test for merger: same conduct, multiple statutory provisions, and unique elements)
State v. Blake, 348 Or. 95 (2010) (distinctions between degrees of robbery and separate statutory provisions)