State v. A. B. A.

481 P.3d 440, 309 Or. App. 336
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 10, 2021
DocketA174270
StatusPublished

This text of 481 P.3d 440 (State v. A. B. A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. A. B. A., 481 P.3d 440, 309 Or. App. 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Submitted January 8, reversed February 10, 2021

In the Matter of A. B. A., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. A. B. A., Appellant. Columbia County Circuit Court 20CC03291; A174270 481 P3d 440

Henry Kantor, Senior Judge. Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Joseph Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 309 Or App 336 (2021) 337

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals an order civilly committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period of time not to exceed 180 days, as well as a supplemental order prohibiting him from possessing firearms, based on findings that he was a danger to himself and others. Appellant seeks reversal of those orders because the trial court failed to advise him of the nature of the proceedings and his rights as required by ORS 426.100(1), which provides that in a civil commit- ment proceeding, the court is required to advise a person of the reason for the proceeding and the possible results of the hearing, as well as the person’s rights to subpoena wit- nesses and be represented by counsel. The state concedes that the order should be reversed because the court plainly erred in that regard. See State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (a trial court’s failure to advise a person of rights as required by ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error that the court will exercise discretion to correct). We agree and accept the state’s concession. For the reasons set forth in M. L. R., we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. M. L. R.
303 P.3d 954 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 P.3d 440, 309 Or. App. 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-a-b-a-orctapp-2021.