explaining that, “[o]rdinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument” | explaining that, “[o]rdinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument” | explaining that we ordinarily “will decline to address an undeveloped argument” | explaining that we ordinarily “will decline to address an undeveloped argument” | where party “plainly put in issue the proper construction of the statute,” appellate court has obligation to correctly construe it, regardless of the parties’ arguments | subject matter jurisdiction never waived; can be raised by any party or court sua sponte at any stage of proceedings | where party “plainly put in issue the proper construction of the statute,” appellate court has obligation to correctly construe it, regardless of the parties’ arguments | “subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and can be raised by any party or by the court sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings” | ORCP 68 C(4)(a)(i), which requires the filing of an attorney fee statement, is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a fee award | jurisdictional matters are never waived and can be raised at any stage in a proceeding | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | record supported post-conviction court’s implicit finding that prosecutor would not have offered a better plea if peti- tioner’s counsel had submitted the results of a polygraph | “[W]here a term has an unambiguous meaning, the fact that it could lead to an absurd result does not justify interpreting it to mean something else.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | when a party “plainly put in issue the proper construction of the statute,” appellate court had an “obligation” to correctly construe the statute, “regardless of the parties’ arguments” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | "Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument." | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | “Ordinarily, the appellate courts of this state will decline to address an undeveloped argument.” | explain- ing that we ordinarily “will decline to address an undevel- oped argument” | where numerous statutes demonstrated that the legislature knew how to refer to a particular administrative agency, the fact that it did not do so in the statute at issue made it unlikely that it intended the latter statute to encompass that agency | where numerous statutes demonstrated that the legislature knew how to refer to a particular administrative agency, the fact that it did not do so in the statute at issue made it unlikely that it intended the latter statute to encompass that agency | where numerous statutes demonstrated that the legislature knew how to refer to a particular administrative agency, the fact that it did not do so in the statute at issue made it unlikely that it intended the latter statute to encompass that agency | “[A] court’s errone- ous exercise of statutory authority does not always equate with an absence of jurisdiction * * *. Rather,