State v. J. E. -S.

No. 65              January 29, 2025                  581

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 J. E.-S.,
         a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                  STATE OF OREGON,
                       Respondent,
                             v.
                         J. E.-S.,
                        Appellant.
              Marion County Circuit Court
                  24CC01198; A183959

  Drew P. Taylor, Judge pro tempore.
  Submitted December 13, 2024.
    Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  EGAN, J.
  Reversed.
582                                                       State v. J. E. -S.

           EGAN, J.
        Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not
to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. We reverse the judgment
and order.1
         Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred
when it issued a prehearing citation that failed to identify
the nature of the information filed concerning the person
and the specific reasons why he was believed to have a mental illness. The state concedes that the trial court plainly
erred and that reversal is warranted. Having reviewed the
citation, we agree with and accept the state’s concession. By
failing to issue a citation that complies with ORS 426.090,
the state failed to comply with the procedures governing
civil commitments. State v. B. L. W., 

, 640-
41, 

 (2024). There is no indication that appellant
waived those procedural protections. 

. Nor was the
necessary information included in an attached document
and incorporated by reference. Cf. State v. S.A., 

, ___ P3d ___ (2024).
          Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the
interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends
of justice, we exercise discretion to correct the error. State v.
T. C., 

, 

 (2023), rev den, 

 (2024).
           Reversed.




    1
      As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel. Because we reverse based on appellant’s second assignment of error, we do
not address his first and third assignments.