State v. Stanton, 337 P.3d 955

Defendant fired five shots from a car toward a group of people after an altercation outside a club; three shots were fired while the car was stopped and two as it pulled away.
Witness testimony (a bouncer) and a 9-1-1 recording supported the timing and number of shots; trial court credited that testimony and convicted defendant on five counts of unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm.
At sentencing defendant argued the five convictions should merge under ORS 161.067 because the shots were part of a single criminal episode with either one victim (a group as a single class) or repeated violations without a sufficient pause to permit renunciation.
The State argued the shots implicated multiple victims (each bystander is a separate victim) and therefore separate punishments are permissible under the anti‑merger statute.
The trial court refused to merge convictions based on its view that each shot created additional risk for multiple victims for purposes of consecutive sentencing under ORS 137.123(5)(b), but it did not make the factual findings required by ORS 161.067 (number of victims or sufficiency of any pause).
The court of appeals vacated and remanded for the trial court to make the required merger findings; otherwise affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether separate UUW convictions must merge when the defendant fired multiple shots at a group	State: each person in the group is a separate victim, so multiple punishable offenses exist	Devore: shots were part of same episode against a single class of persons (one victim) or, if one victim, there was no sufficient pause to allow renunciation	Trial court failed to make required ORS 161.067 findings; appellate court vacated and remanded for trial court to determine number of victims and whether a sufficient pause existed
Whether consecutive sentencing analysis obviates the need to decide merger	State: consecutive-sentence risk analysis supports separate punishment because each shot increased risk to different victims	Devore: merger analysis is distinct and must be addressed; consecutive-sentence rationale doesn’t resolve merger	Court: ORS 137.123 consecutive-sentence analysis does not discharge the trial court’s duty under ORS 161.067 to decide merger; remand required

State v. Cale, 263 Or App 635 (discusses standard of review and deference to trial court factual findings)
State v. Glaspey, 337 Or 558 (interprets ORS 161.067(2) on meaning of "victims")
State v. Huffman, 234 Or App 177 (discusses "sufficient pause" requirement in ORS 161.067(3))
State v. Lunacolorado, 238 Or App 691 (clarifies when appellate court may infer unmade factual findings)
State v. Bowers, 234 Or App 301 (explains that consecutive-sentencing reasoning does not replace merger determinations)
Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 (on inferring trial court factual findings when necessary to appellate reasoning)