State of O. R.

Opinion

676 September 2, 2026 No. 840

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 O. R.,

a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

STATE OF OREGON,

Respondent,

v. O. R., Appellant.

Deschutes County Circuit Court 25CC03891; A188832

Owyhee Weikel-Magden, Judge pro tempore. On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed June 4, 2026. Opinion filed June 3, 2026. 350 Or App 228 (2026).

Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., for petition.

No response filed. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* EGAN, J. Petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

______________

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 352 Or App 676 (2026) 677

* Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b).

EGAN, J. Appellant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in State v. O.R., 350 Or App 230, ___ P3d ___ (2026). In that case, we accepted the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred when it entered an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms in a recommitment proceeding because the statutory mechanism for recommitment does not authorize a circuit court to issue a firearm-prohibition order. Appellant asks us to delete or modify the following sentence in the opinion:

“Appellant was prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms at the time of her initial commitment, in July of 2025; that order remains in effect until appellant obtains relief from the prohibition, as provided in ORS 426.130(5) (once a firearm prohibition order is entered pursuant to ORS 426.130(2)(a)(D), it remains in effect unless the person obtains relief from the prohibition from the Psychiatric Review Board or under federal law).” Id. at 231-32. Appellant asserts that the continuing effect of the July 2025 order was not at issue in this appeal and does not want the opinion to be read to foreclose any arguments on that matter. The reference to the July 2025 order was included only as factual background and, to avoid any risk that it could be misread for more, we allow the petition for reconsideration and modify our former opinion by replacing the sentence quoted above with the following: “Appellant was prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms at the time of her initial commitment in July of 2025 pursuant to ORS 426.130(2)(a)(D); that order is not at issue in this appeal.”

Petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.