State v. K. D.

270                   April 30, 2025                No. 394

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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. D.,
         a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                 STATE OF OREGON,
                      Respondent,
                            v.
                         K. D.,
                       Appellant.
              Marion County Circuit Court
                  24CC04279; A185146

  Drew P. Taylor, Judge pro tempore.
  Submitted March 14, 2025.
   Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed
the brief for appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  EGAN, J.
  Reversed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                           271

           EGAN, J.
        Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to
exceed 90 days. The trial court entered that judgment after
finding that appellant suffered from a mental illness. See
ORS 426.005(1)(f). We reverse.1
         Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred
in failing to issue a citation to her that included the specific reasons that she was believed to have a mental illness
that would subject her to commitment, as required by ORS
426.090.
        The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the
record, 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., 

, 

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

.
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 plain 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.