State v. P.B.S.

“An error is ‘plain’ when it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without our having to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 345 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013).

Defendant appealed a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division’s custody. Since the issue was not raised at trial, Defendant requested a plain-error review, assigning error to the trial court conducting a hearing upon a citation out of compliance with ORS 426.080 and ORS 426.090. On appeal, Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated when the trial court did not serve him as required by ORS 426.090, evidenced by the lack of proof of service in the court files as required by ORS 426.080. The State argued that the judgment stated that the citation was “issued to and served upon [Defendant].” “An error is ‘plain’ when it is an error of law, the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without our having to choose among competing inferences.” State v. Vanornum, 345 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013). The Court reasoned that the lack of a return of service inferred that Defendant was not served, but the judgment inferred the opposite. These competing inferences in the record meant that the error was not plain. Thus, because the Court was limited to a plain-error review, they affirmed the trial court’s decision. AFFIRMED.