State v. T. S. L. , 334 Or. App. 20 ( 2024 )

20 July 24, 2024 No. 511
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of T. S. L.,
a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
T. S. L.,
Appellant.
Jackson County Circuit Court
23CC07520; A183230
Laura A. Cromwell, Judge.
Submitted June 14, 2024.
Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, C. J. and Egan, J.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Reversed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 334 Or App 20 (2024) 21
LAGESEN, C. J.
Appellant challenges a civil commitment judgment
and an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of fire-
arms. In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that
the trial court plainly erred by failing to issue the citation
required by ORS 426.070(5)(a), and by failing to serve it on
appellant, ORS 426.090. The state concedes the error. We
agree with and accept that concession. We therefore reverse.1
A certified mental health investigator recommended
that the trial court issue a citation for a civil commitment
hearing, but no citation appears in the record, and no hear-
ing occurred because appellant was committed pursuant
to a stipulation. The state’s failure to issue and serve the
citation “is reversible error unless the record allows for the
affirmative inference that the appellant waived the proce-
dural protection at issue or, alternatively, received a func-
tionally equivalent protection in a different form.” State v.
T. C., 327 Or App 558, 563, 536 P3d 591 (2023), rev den, 371
Or 825 (2024). Here, there is no indication that appellant
waived the right at issue. The error is plain, and we exercise
our discretion to correct it. Id. at 571. We therefore reverse
the judgment and order.
Reversed.
1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-
judge panel. Because we reverse based on the first assignment of error, we do not
address appellant’s second assignment of error.