State v. Crider, 418 P.3d 18

Background

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts under former ORS 181.812 (2013): (1) failing to report a change of residence (subsection (1)(d)) and (2) failing to make an annual report (subsection (1)(e)).
Both offenses were alleged "on or about December 11, 2014;" defendant admitted the dates in his plea.
Former ORS 181.806–181.809 set out separate reporting obligations (initial report, change of residence, annual report, education/work changes, etc.).
Former ORS 181.812 criminalized failures to comply with each of those separate reporting duties and classified some failures differently (e.g., failure to report a move by a sex felon could be a felony; annual-report failures generally a misdemeanor).
At sentencing defendant argued the convictions should merge under ORS 161.067(1); trial court refused and imposed $628 in court-appointed attorney fees without evidentiary finding of ability to pay.
On appeal the state conceded the attorney-fee imposition was plain error; the court accepted that concession and reversed the fee portion but affirmed the convictions without merger.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two guilty verdicts must merge under ORS 161.067(1)	The state argued the statute contains separate provisions for separate reporting duties, so two statutory violations exist	Ortega argued subsections (1)(d) and (1)(e) are alternative ways to violate a single statutory purpose (failure to report) and therefore should merge	Convictions do not merge: the text and context show distinct reporting obligations and separate statutory provisions, so each requires an element the other does not
Whether differing punishments (misdemeanor vs felony) indicate separate crimes	State relied in part on differing classifications to show legislative intent to create separate offenses	Ortega contended difference in classification does not control because statute is not an incrementally graded single offense	Court found difference in seriousness supports separate offenses and legislative intent to treat them independently
Whether the trial court plainly erred by imposing court-appointed attorney fees without proof of ability to pay	State conceded plain error on fees; court should correct	Ortega argued imposition lacked any supporting evidence of ability to pay	Court accepted concession, exercised discretion to correct, and reversed fee order due to silence in record and defendant's demonstrated inability to pay
Whether legislative history is necessary to resolve merger question	State argued legislative history not dispositive; statute structure and context control	Ortega urged a unified legislative objective supports single offense	Court held statutory text and context dispositive; legislative history unnecessary because statutes expressly create separate reporting duties

Key Cases Cited

State v. White, 346 Or. 275 (Sup. Ct.) (distinguishing when separate statutory paragraphs may constitute a single crime)
State v. Parkins, 346 Or. 333 (Sup. Ct.) (elements test for multiple statutory violations and merger analysis)
State v. Crotsley, 308 Or. 272 (Sup. Ct.) (framework quoted for merger: same conduct, separate statutory provisions, distinct elements)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Sup. Ct.) (use of statutory text over legislative history)
State v. Colmenares-Chavez, 244 Or. App. 339 (Or. App.) (different punishments support finding separate statutory provisions)
State v. Slatton, 268 Or. App. 556 (Or. App.) (examples where separate paragraphs did not create separate crimes)
State v. Black, 270 Or. App. 501 (Or. App.) (standard of review for merger legal error)
State v. Coverstone, 260 Or. App. 714 (Or. App.) (plain error when imposing court-appointed attorney fees without evidence of ability to pay)
State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or. App. 630 (Or. App.) (court may not speculate about defendant's ability to pay fees)
State v. Kanuch, 231 Or. App. 20 (Or. App.) (state bears burden to prove defendant is or may be able to pay attorney fees)
State v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 264 Or. App. 346 (Or. App.) (appellate exercise of discretion to correct erroneous fee imposition)