State v. S. U.

                                826

         Submitted December 3, 2021, reversed January 5, 2022


                  In the Matter of S. U.,
         a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                  STATE OF OREGON,
                       Respondent,
                            v.
                          S. U.,
                        Appellant.
             Klamath County Circuit Court
                  21CC03336; A176433
                             

  Cameron F. Wogan, Senior Judge.
    Alexander C. Cambier 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 Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and
Armstrong, Senior Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Reversed.
Cite as 

 (2022)                              827

        PER CURIAM
          Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to
the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180
days, as well as an order prohibiting him from purchasing or
possessing firearms. He argues that the court failed to comply with the citation requirements of ORS 426.080 and ORS
426.090 and this constitutes plain error that entitles him
to reversal. The state concedes that this is plain error and
that appellant is entitled to reversal. We agree and accept
that concession. ORS 426.090 requires a court to issue to an
allegedly mentally ill person a citation that informs the person of the person’s legal rights, and also requires that “[t]he
citation shall be served upon the person by delivering a duly
certified copy of the original thereof to the person in person
prior to the hearing.” ORS 426.080 provides that the person serving such a citation “shall, immediately after service
thereof, make a return upon the original warrant or citation
showing the time, place and manner of such service and file
it with the clerk of the court.” No such citation or certificate
of service is in the record in this case. We exercise discretion to correct that error for the reasons stated in State v.
J. R. W., 

, 

 (2020), and State v.
R. E. J., 

, 

 (2020).
        Reversed.