State v. G. C.-M., 350 Or App 404

The trial court committed appellant to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days after finding he was a danger to others due to mental disorder. 1
The court also entered a firearms order under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D) prohibiting appellant from purchasing or possessing firearms. 2
The firearms order additionally directed the sheriff to seize and dispose of all firearms owned or possessed by appellant. 3
The trial court did not give appellant the post-commitment firearm-prohibition notice required by ORS 426.130(4). 4
Before the hearing, the court advised appellant of possible outcomes, including a mistaken statement that it could order him to participate in outpatient commitment if found mentally ill. 5
The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, modifying the firearms order, requiring the statutory notice, and declining to reverse the commitment for the prehearing advisement error. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May firearms order include sheriff seizure/disposal provision? 7	G.C.-M. argued the sheriff-seizure language lacked legal authority.	The state conceded the provision was unauthorized.	Provision stricken; no authority supported it. 8
Was ORS 426.130(4) firearm notice required after commitment? 9	G.C.-M. argued the court never gave the required notice.	The state agreed notice was omitted but argued the judgment remedy was enough.	Trial court erred; judgment must include the notice on remand. 10
Did omission of firearm notice require reversing commitment? 11	G.C.-M. argued reversal was the only effective remedy.	The state argued the error occurred after the commitment decision.	No; commitment not reversed. 12
Was advising outpatient commitment as a possible result plain error? 13	G.C.-M. argued outpatient commitment was not a lawful possible result.	The state argued any error was not plain or not reversible.	Plain error occurred, but the court declined to exercise discretion to reverse. 14

Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209 (Or. 2008) (preservation excused when error first appears in judgment or order 15)
State v. E. N. G., 200 Or App 40 (Or. Ct. App. 2005) (civil commitment court lacked authority to order sheriff to seize and dispose of firearms 16)
State v. Taylor, 323 Or App 422 (Or. Ct. App. 2022) (court has independent duty to assess preservation 17)
State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335 (Or. 2000) (unpreserved issues generally are not considered on appeal 18)
State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614 (Or. 2013) (defines plain error 19)
State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160 (Or. 2006) (whether an error is plain is a question of law 20)
State v. S. J. F., 247 Or App 321 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (plain error, if not harmless, may be corrected in discretion 21)
State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (civil commitment has five possible results and omitted-result errors have been reversed 22)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (Or. 1991) (lists factors for exercising discretion to correct plain error 23)
State v. J. R. S., 328 Or App 733 (Or. Ct. App. 2023) (firearm prohibition consequence not obviously required in prehearing advisement 24)