State v. K. W. (A188390)

347 Or. App. 497

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 25, 2026
• Docket: A188390
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 158 February 25, 2026 497

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 K. W., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. K. W., Appellant. Lincoln County Circuit Court 25CC04575; A188390

Marcia L. Buckley, Judge. Submitted January 9, 2026. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Interim Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Reversed. 498 State v. K. W. (A188390)

EGAN, J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused her to be unable to provide for her basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B) (2019), amended by Or Laws 2025, ch 559, § 4. We reverse.1 Appellant raises two assignments of error. In one assignment, she argues that the court plainly erred by failing to advise her of all of the possible results of the hearing. In her other assignment of error, she argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to dismiss her case when she did not receive a hearing within five judicial days after an initial hold by an independent practitioner. See State v. L. O. W., 292 Or App 376, 380-81, 424 P3d 789 (2018). The state con- cedes that that was plain error, and that we typically exer- cise our discretion to correct such errors. We agree with and accept the state’s concession, and we exercise our discretion to correct the error due to the nature of the proceedings, the relative interests of the parties and the ends of justice. Because we reverse on this assignment of error, we need not reach appellant’s second assignment. Reversed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.