State v. T. W. D.

No. 1071 November 4, 2026 439 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 T. W. D. III, a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. T. W. D. III, Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 25CC06144; A189085 Susan M. Tripp, Senior Judge. Submitted September 11, 2026. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Jose Garcia-Fuerte, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* LAGESEN, C. J. Firearms-prohibition order reversed and remanded for entry of an amended order; otherwise affirmed. ______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). 440 State v. T. W. D. LAGESEN, C. J. Appellant appeals a judgment involuntarily com- mitting him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period of time not to exceed 180 days and an order prohibiting appellant from the purchase or possession of firearms and ammunition. Appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it proceeded on a citation that failed to comply with ORS 426.090 (2023), amended by Or Laws 2025, ch 559, § 11, that the trial court erred when it declined to postpone the commitment hearing, and that the trial court erred when it entered a firearm-prohibition order that also barred appellant from purchasing or possessing ammunition. We reverse the portion of the firearm-prohibi- tion order relating to ammunition and otherwise affirm. We review whether the trial court complied with statutory requirements for legal error. State v. V. L., 341 Or App 774, 777, 575 P3d 215 (2025). An alleged error is plain if it is an error of law, obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the face of the record without having to choose among competing inferences. State v. B.W.C., 347 Or App 755, 759, 589 P3d 197 (2026) (citing State v. Varnonum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013)). ORS 426.090 (2023) provides, in relevant part, that a judge “shall issue a cita- tion * * * stating the nature of the information filed concern- ing the person and the specific reasons” that the person is believed have a mental illness. Those specific reasons may be contained in a report or other attachment that is incorpo- rated by reference in the citation. V.L., 341 Or App at 777– 78. Here, the citation incorporated by reference both a notice of mental illness as well as an investigation report that con- tained the specific reasons appellant is believed to be a per- son with mental illness. Accordingly, the trial court did not plainly err by proceeding on the basis of that citation. As to the trial court’s decision not to postpone the hearing, we conclude that the error is not preserved. Appellant appeared at the hearing along with appointed counsel, and at the beginning of the hearing, appellant expressed that he wanted to retain a specific named attorney to represent him. The state responded that appellant could not afford retained counsel. The trial court acknowledged Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 439 (2026) 441 appellant’s desire to retain counsel and stated that it would allow appellant to “come back before the court for a reap- pearance in the event that retained counsel appears in the case.” On this record, it is not clear that the trial court would have understood appellant to be requesting a postponement “for good cause” to allow preparation for the hearing under ORS 426.095(2)(c), as he now argues on appeal. See State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2000) (to preserve a claim of error for review, a party must “provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately”). Defendant has not requested plain error review; we gener- ally decline to exercise our discretion to consider the error on that basis alone. ORAP 5.45(7) (“The court may decline to exercise its discretion to consider plain error absent a request explaining the reasons that the court should con- sider the error.”). Finally, appellant challenges the portion of the firearms-prohibition order that prohibits appellant from possessing or purchasing ammunition, a provision that appeared for the first time in the written order. State v. G.C.-M., 350 Or App 404, 407, 594 P3d 493 (2026) (excusing preservation where firearm prohibition for civil committee appeared for the first time in the firearms order). The state correctly concedes that the trial court erred because nothing in ORS 426.130 (2023), amended by Or Laws 2025, ch 559, § 5, authorizes the court to prohibit appellant from possess- ing or purchasing ammunition. We accept the concession and reverse the portion of the order related to ammunition and remand for entry of an amended order deleting “and ammunition” from the order. Firearms-prohibition order reversed and remanded for entry of an amended order; otherwise affirmed.