Full Opinion

316 October 28, 2026 No. 1054 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 CITY OF ST. HELENS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jessica HAHMEYER, aka Jessica Warren, Defendant-Appellant. St. Helens Municipal Court 21830, 21829; A188231 Amy B. Lindgren, Judge. Submitted October 7, 2026. Geordie Duckler and Geordie Duckler, P.C. filed the open- ing brief for appellant. Jessica Hahmeyer filed the reply brief pro se. Truman A. Stone and Local Government Law Group P.C. filed the brief for respondent. Before Kamins, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 316 (2026) 317 PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a municipal court judgment find- ing her in violation of provisions of the St. Helens Municipal code based on an incident in which two of her dogs killed a neighbor’s cat. Defendant raises two assignments of error: (1) that the municipal court erred in proceeding to trial based on citations that, according to defendant, did not sup- ply the information required by ordinance and had not been properly served; and (2) in finding that defendant’s dogs qualified as “dangerous animals” under city code based on an erroneous interpretation of the code. Defendant did not raise these issues in the munic- ipal court proceeding so they are not preserved. Although defendant contends she preserved these assignments of error by filing a post-judgment motion for writ of review in the Columbia County Circuit Court, that contention is incorrect. As the city points out, under ORS 138.010 and ORS 138.057, the writ of review process was not available to defendant because defendant had a right to appeal the municipal court’s violation judgment under ORS 138.057. Consequently, defen- dant’s allegations in her improperly-filed writ-of-review pro- ceeding did not operate to preserve her assignments of error. To the extent that defendant seeks plain error review, the alleged errors are not ones that are “obvious and not reasonably in dispute” on the record before us. State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013). Specifically, even if the citations may not have supplied all the informa- tion required under the city code and may not have been served properly, it is not obvious that the trial court erred in proceeding to trial on them where it appeared that defendant understood the scope of the trial, was prepared for trial, had witnesses presented to testify, and did not indicate a need for a continuance. For the same reasons, to the extent defen- dant suggests that the municipal court’s procedure violated her due-process rights, that point also is not obvious on this record. Finally, as for the municipal court’s interpretation of the code, it was not obviously incorrect. For those reasons, defendant’s unpreserved assignments of error provide no basis for reversing the judgment on appeal. Affirmed.