State v. West-Howell, 385 P.3d 1121

Defendant and victim (married, cohabiting) had a violent encounter where defendant forced the victim to perform oral sex, then moved her to the bed, strangled her unconscious, attempted rape, and then again forced oral sex.
Jury convicted defendant of multiple offenses, including two counts of first-degree sodomy (Counts 2 and 5).
At resentencing, trial court declined to merge the two sodomy convictions under ORS 161.067(3), finding a sufficient pause between them (the choking/attempted rape) that could have allowed renunciation of intent.
Defendant appealed the nonmerger ruling and separately challenged (unpreserved) the imposition of $3,710 in court-appointed attorney fees.
The appellate court affirmed the refusal to merge the sodomy convictions but reversed the portion of the judgment ordering payment of attorney fees due to lack of any record finding on ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two convictions for first-degree sodomy must merge under ORS 161.067(3) (sufficient-pause requirement)	State: The acts were separated by a pause (moving victim, strangling until unconscious, attempted rape) sufficient to afford renunciation of intent, so convictions may stand separately	Defendant: The sodomies were part of an ongoing, continuous attack; intervening conduct was additional criminal acts, not a pause sufficient to renounce sodomy intent, so convictions must merge	Affirmed nonmerger: pause between sodomies (different, significant intervening acts) was sufficient to allow a new intent to commit sodomy, so separate convictions are permissible under ORS 161.067(3)
Whether the trial court may impose court-appointed attorney fees without a record showing defendant "is or may be able to pay"	State conceded error on appeal	Defendant: Trial court erred; record silent about ability to pay and unlikely to improve while incarcerated	Reversed fees as plain error: record lacked required findings about ability to pay; fees vacated

State v. Campbell, 265 Or. App. 132 (Or. Ct. App.) (merger analysis; continuous uninterrupted attack supports merger) (note: court relied on assault-merger precedent)
State v. Huffman, 234 Or. App. 177 (Or. Ct. App.) (definition of "sufficient pause" under ORS 161.067(3))
State v. Reed, 256 Or. App. 61 (Or. Ct. App.) (distinguishing historical-fact vs. legal determination on sufficiency of pause)
State v. Barnum, 333 Or. 297 (Or.) (one crime must end before another begins for pause to exist)
State v. King, 261 Or. App. 650 (Or. Ct. App.) (separate convictions upheld where a significant intervening event ended the first assault)
State v. Cale, 263 Or. App. 635 (Or. Ct. App.) (looking to assault merger cases to decide sexual-offense merger questions)
State v. Glazier, 253 Or. App. 109 (Or. Ct. App.) (trial-court factual findings are binding when supported by evidence)
State v. Coverstone, 260 Or. App. 714 (Or. Ct. App.) (imposing attorney fees without record on ability to pay is plain error)
State v. Kurtz, 273 Or. App. 741 (Or. Ct. App.) (exercise of discretion to correct plain error in attorney-fee imposition)