STATE v. MALONE, 111 Or. App. 112 (1992)

824 P.2d 430

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ANTHONY JAMES MALONE, Appellant.

C89-09-34962; CA A63943Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted November 21, 1991
Affirmed January 22, 1992 Reconsideration denied April 15, 1992 Petition for review denied May 26, 1992 (313 Or. 300)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Richard L. Unis, Judge.

Peter Gartlan, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

Page 113

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of compelling prostitution, ORS 167.017, and promoting prostitution. ORS 167.012. He argues that the trial court erred in not merging the convictions. He seeks vacation of his conviction for promoting prostitution.

Offenses do not merge if proof of each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. ORS 161.067. ORS 167.012(1)(c) — defining the crime of promoting prostitution — requires proof that the defendant received or agreed to receive money or other property derived from prostitution, which is not an element of the crime of compelling prostitution. ORS 167.017(1)(b) — defining the crime of compelling prostitution — requires proof that the defendant’s victim was under the age of 18. That is not an element of promoting prostitution.

Defendant committed crimes requiring proof of different statutory elements. The trial court properly declined to merge the convictions. See State v. Wallock/Hara, 110 Or. App. 109, 821 P.2d 435 (1991).

Affirmed.

Page 114