State v. K. W.

800                  December 11, 2024               No. 902

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 K. W.,
      a Person Alleged to have Intellectual Disabilities.
                   STATE OF OREGON,
                        Respondent,
                              v.
                           K. W.,
                          Appellant.
                Marion County Circuit Court
                    23CC07360; A183397

  Drew P. Taylor, Judge pro tempore.
  Submitted November 8, 2024.
    Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce,
Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Firearm order reversed; otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)             801

        PER CURIAM
        Appellant was found to be intellectually disabled
and committed to the custody of the Department of Human
Services for one year. On appeal, she challenges both the
judgment of commitment and a contemporaneously issued
“Order Prohibiting Purchase or Possession of Firearms.”
           In her first assignment of error, appellant argues
that the trial court erred by proceeding with the hearing
and ultimately committing her, given deficiencies in the
preparation and service of the citation. We reject that argument for reasons similar to those in State v. S. R.-N., 

, 

 (2022). “Until and unless we or
the Supreme Court overrules S. R.-N., it remains good law.”
State v. D. K. P., 

, 

 (2024).
“[A]s in S. R.-N., we decline to exercise any discretion that we
have to correct the error, because we conclude that it did not
result ‘in a commitment hearing that was less than full and
fair.’ ” 

 (quoting S. R.-N., 

). Accordingly,
we affirm the judgment of commitment.
         In her second assignment of error, appellant argues
that the trial court erred by issuing the order that prohibits
her from purchasing or possessing firearms, because there
is no statutory authority for such an order. Appellant had no
opportunity to object as the court issued that order without
notice after the hearing. The state, which did not request a
firearms prohibition, concedes that the court erred, because
there is no statute comparable to ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D) that
applies to intellectual-disability commitments. See ORS
426.130(1)(a)(D) (requiring the court to order that a person
with mental illness be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, if the stated criteria are met). We accept
the concession as well taken and, accordingly, reverse the
firearm order.
        Firearm order reversed; otherwise affirmed.