State v. S. M. P. (In re S. M. P.), 447 P.3d 84, 299 Or. App. 202 (2019)

Aug. 28, 2019 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · A169211
447 P.3d 84, 299 Or. App. 202

In the MATTER OF S. M. P., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

State of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
S. M. P., Appellant.

A169211

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted July 29, 2019.
August 28, 2019

Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*85*203Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant contends the judgment should be reversed because the court failed to serve a citation on appellant "prior to the hearing," as required by ORS 426.090.1 Appellant acknowledges that he did not preserve his assignment of error, but requests that we review and correct the error as plain error. ORAP 5.45(1). We reject appellant's assignment of error because any error by the court was not "plain."

Here, the transcript of the proceedings shows that appellant was served with the citation at 10:03 a.m. prior to the commencement of the hearing. However, the court file provides that the hearing was set for 10:30 a.m., and the filed certificate of service provides that appellant was served with the citation on the date of the hearing at 10:37 a.m. Because it is not irrefutable, based on this record, that appellant was not served with the citation until after the hearing commenced, the error alleged by appellant does not qualify as plain error. See State v. Jury , 185 Or. App. 132, 135, 57 P.3d 970 (2002), rev. den. , 335 Or. 504, 72 P.3d 636 (2003) ("For error to be considered apparent on the face of the record for purposes of ORAP 5.45, it must satisfy three criteria: (1) it must be legal error; (2) it must be apparent, such that the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) it must appear on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are *204irrefutable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.