344 ORAPP 365 - State v. Webb

No. 916                October 22, 2025                365

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                  STATE OF OREGON,
                   Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
                RICHARD MARK WEBB,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Josephine County Circuit Court
                   19CR77452; A177834

  Pat Wolke, Judge.
   On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed August
15, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, for petition.
  No response filed.
  Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
  PAGÁN, J.
  Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and
adhered to as modified.
366                                             State v. Webb

        PAGÁN, J.
         Defendant petitions for reconsideration of State
v. Webb,

342 Or App 426

, ___ P3d ___ (2025), in which we
affirmed defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder. Defendant takes issue with the line “Defendant’s first
through third supplemental pro se assignments of error are
unpreserved, and he does not request plain error review, and
thus we reject them.”

Id. at 445

. Defendant argues that he
did ask for plain error review in his first supplemental pro
se assignment of error by requesting that we exercise our
discretion to address the issue and citing to Ailes v. Portland
Meadows, Inc.,

312 Or 376

, 381-82 n 6,

823 P2d 956

(1991),
even though he did not request plain error review by name.
We agree that defendant’s request was sufficient for us to
consider plain error review. However, defendant failed to
develop his plain error argument, and our outcome remains
the same. Accordingly, we allow reconsideration, modify our
prior opinion as described below, and adhere to the opinion
as modified.
We modify the challenged sentence from
“Defendant’s first through third supplemental pro se assignments of error are unpreserved, and he does not request
plain error review, and thus we reject them” to “Defendant’s
second and third supplemental pro se assignments of error
are unpreserved, and he does not request plain error review,
and thus we reject them.” We strike the italicized portion of
the original sentence (excluding the naturally italicized “pro
se”) and replace it with the italicized portion of the modified
sentence.
We additionally add this paragraph immediately
prior to the paragraph starting with the challenged sentence, at the beginning of section G: “In his first supplemental pro se assignment of error, defendant asserts that the
trial court erred when it admitted a recording of the police
interview of defendant without first determining that defendant’s statement had been voluntarily given. Defendant did
not object and requests plain error review. While defendant
does provide an argument for why the trial court erred, he
does not develop an argument as to why any such error is
plain, and we decline to develop the argument for him. See,
Cite as

344 Or App 365

 (2025)                            367

e.g., Waldorf v. Premo,

301 Or App 572, 584

457 P3d 298

(2019), rev den,

366 Or 451

 (2020) (not addressing undeveloped argument). Accordingly, we reject defendant’s first supplemental pro se assignment of error.”
       Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified
and adhered to as modified.