State v. Davis, 335 P.3d 322

Defendant, convicted of murder in 1995, was charged with two counts of felon in possession of a firearm after police found a rifle and a shotgun in his home in 2011.
Defendant pleaded no contest to both counts; the trial court accepted the pleas and found him guilty on both counts.
At sentencing, defendant moved for merger of the two felon-in-possession convictions; the court denied merger and entered two convictions.
On appeal, defendant renewed the merger argument; the State moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.
The court held it had jurisdiction under ORS 138.222(7) and ORS 161.067 and affirmed the merger denial on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is properly before the court.	State: no jurisdiction; merger challenge not dispositional.	Sumerlin supports jurisdiction for merger challenges under ORS 138.222(7).	Yes; appellate jurisdiction exists under ORS 138.222(7).
Whether two felon-in-possession convictions can merge under ORS 161.067(3).	State: could still be separately punishable due to pause between possessory acts.	Gun acquisitions occurred at different times with pause to renounce intent.	Two counts do not merge; sufficient pause supported separate punishments.
What standard governs merger under ORS 161.067(3) when possession of multiple firearms occurred at different times.	State; pause between possessory acts exists due to different owners/locations.		Record supports inference of separate possession events creating pause under ORS 161.067(3).

State v. Clements, 265 Or App 9 (2014) (limits appellate review of guilty/no contest pleas to dispositional issues in felony appeals)
State v. Landahl, 254 Or App 46 (2012) (conviction not a 'disposition' for ORS 138.050 purposes; affects jurisdictional analysis)
State v. Sumerlin, 139 Or App 579 (1996) (merger challenge can be a dispositional issue reviewable under ORS 138.222/138.050)
State v. Mason, 241 Or App 714 (2011) (merger analysis considers whether separate acquisitions show pause to renounce intent)
State v. O’Dell, 264 Or App 303 (2014) (two weapons may be separately punishable if record shows pause to renounce criminal intent)
State v. Bell, 246 Or App 12 (2011) (separate possession events can create pauses allowing separate convictions)
State v. Collins, 100 Or App 311 (1990) (personal-victim rationale previously used in merger discussions (overruled by Torres))
State v. Torres, 249 Or App 571 (2012) (overruled Collins on merger of firearm possession counts)