either the finding of guilt in a given case or the judgment of conviction combining the finding of guilt with a corresponding criminal sentence. State v. Gile, 161 Or App 146, 150, 985 P2d 199 (1999). I understand the legislature to have intended “conviction,” for purposes of ORS 161.610, to mean a finding of guilt, and not a judgment of conviction combined with a criminal sentence. That understanding is derived from the text and context of ORS 161.610, PGE, 317 Or at 610-11, including the legislative changes that have brought it into its present form. State v. K. P., 324 Or 1, 9, 921 P2d 380 (1996). As originally enacted, the operative provisions of ORS 161.610 applied in three situations: (1) where “the conviction necessarily establishe[d] that the defendant used P2d 1224 (1996) (<HOLDING>), with Gile, 161 Or App at 150-51 (holding that
holding that it is not known legally that an offense has been committed until there is a conviction holding that a claim that the defendant may be insane at the time of execution is premature where no death warrant has been signed and the defendant has not been found to be incompetent holding the same where the term conviction refers to a defendant who has been found guilty of a listed offense but has not yet been sentenced holding that a person who was a juvenile at the time of the offense cannot be sentenced to death holding that an immigrant defendant is eligible for  212c relief despite having been sentenced to a fifteen year prison term because he had not yet served five years of the sentence