in that regard. We conclude that the concession is well taken. Freeman testified at trial that he owned several transformers. In 2008, he discovered that material had been removed from the transformers. Freeman then went to a Schnitzer Steel scrap metal facility, where he found the missing material. A Schnitzer Steel manager testified that defendant twice sold copper to Schnitzer Steel in 2008. Schnitzer Steel paid defendant more than $1,000 for each transaction. Because the two first-degree theft counts brought against defendant for taking the copper and selling it constituted two theories of theft of the same property from a single victim, Freeman, the trial court erred in failing to merge those counts into a single conviction. See State v. Cox, 336 Or 284, 292, 82 P3d 619 (2003) (<HOLDING>); State v. Eilers, 235 Or App 566, 232 P3d 997
holding that liability under  1983 can be established by showing that the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiffs rights or caused such a deprivation to occur holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort when the government seized and failed to return plaintiffs property or in the alternative that his property was lost as a result of the governments theft holding that the state is obligated to pay property owners when it regulates private property under its police power in such a manner that the regulation effectively deprives the owner of the economically viable use of that property holding that ors 164015 the theft statute consolidated the various forms of unlawful property deprivation into a single offense of theft that does not depend on the relationship between the thief and the owner the type of property or the manner of deprivation holding that deprivation of property must conform to due process principles