No. 916 October 22, 2025 365 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RICHARD MARK WEBB, Defendant-Appellant.

Josephine County Circuit Court 19CR77452; A177834 Pat Wolke, Judge.

On appellant’s petition for reconsideration filed August 15, 2025.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, for petition.

No response filed.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and Pagán, Judge.

PAGÁN, J.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

366 State v. Webb PAGÁN, J.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of State v. Webb, 342 Or App 426, ___ P3d ___ (2025), in which we affirmed defendant’s conviction for second-degree mur- der. Defendant takes issue with the line “Defendant’s first through third supplemental pro se assignments of error are unpreserved, and he does not request plain error review, and thus we reject them.” Id. at 445. Defendant argues that he did ask for plain error review in his first supplemental pro se assignment of error by requesting that we exercise our discretion to address the issue and citing to Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381-82 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991), even though he did not request plain error review by name.

We agree that defendant’s request was sufficient for us to consider plain error review. However, defendant failed to develop his plain error argument, and our outcome remains the same. Accordingly, we allow reconsideration, modify our prior opinion as described below, and adhere to the opinion as modified.

We modify the challenged sentence from “Defendant’s first through third supplemental pro se assign- ments of error are unpreserved, and he does not request plain error review, and thus we reject them” to “Defendant’s second and third supplemental pro se assignments of error are unpreserved, and he does not request plain error review, and thus we reject them.” We strike the italicized portion of the original sentence (excluding the naturally italicized “pro se”) and replace it with the italicized portion of the modified sentence.

We additionally add this paragraph immediately prior to the paragraph starting with the challenged sen- tence, at the beginning of section G: “In his first supplemen- tal pro se assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it admitted a recording of the police interview of defendant without first determining that defen- dant’s statement had been voluntarily given. Defendant did not object and requests plain error review. While defendant does provide an argument for why the trial court erred, he does not develop an argument as to why any such error is plain, and we decline to develop the argument for him. See, Cite as 344 Or App 365 (2025) 367 e.g., Waldorf v. Premo, 301 Or App 572, 584, 457 P3d 298 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 451 (2020) (not addressing undevel- oped argument). Accordingly, we reject defendant’s first sup- plemental pro se assignment of error.”

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.