State v. S. R.-N.

"[A] constitutionally significant deprivation of due process requires an assessment of the risk that a procedural failure resulted in the commitment." See Mathews v. Elridge, 424 US 319, 335 (1976).

Appellant appealed a judgment that committed him to the custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS) for one year, under ORS chapter 427. On appeal, Appellant made three assignments of error, all of which were unpreserved and procedural: (1) his hearing was not held within the requisite time frame, (2) a citation was not issued, and (3) the court failed to advise him of the nature of the proceedings. Appellant conceded that the outcome of the case did not turn on any of the identified errors. "[A] constitutionally significant deprivation of due process requires an assessment of the risk that a procedural failure resulted in the commitment." See Mathews v. Elridge, 424 US 319, 335 (1976). The Court held that since the commitment did not result from the procedural violations, the Court would not use their discretion to overturn the judgment. Affirmed.