This issue presents a question of law that we review de novo. In Martin v. State, the defendant pled no contest to second-degree burglary in violation of AS 11.46.310. Under these circumstances, any differences between the legislative schemes will not preclude a finding of substantial similarity. The State asserts that Delagarza's Oregon convictions for second-degree robbery are prior felony convictions for purposes of presumptive sentencing. On their face, each statute requires the prosecution to prove that a defendant used or threatened to use force on any person to overcome the resistance of any person to the theft or taking of property or to compel anyone to deliver the property or enable the theft or taking of the property.
Robbery is traditionally a combination of theft and assault.
Delagarza argues that the Oregon robbery statute is not similar because Oregon emphasizes the theft nature of the crime, whereas in Alaska, robbery is a crime against the person. However, this contention is not supported by Oregon case law. We conclude that . . . Because of this, Delagarza posits that in Oregon the property that is the subject of the robbery does not have to be anywhere near a person who is subjected to the element of force in a robbery. For instance, an assault on a bank guard standing outside a building would qualify as a robbery even though the robber's ultimate goal was a vault located one hundred yards away in the basement.