State v. A. R. (In re A. R.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. A. R. (In re A. R.)

431 P.3d 473, 295 Or. App. 517

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 19, 2018

DocketA167548

StatusPublished

This text of 431 P.3d 473 (State v. A. R. (In re A. R.)) 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. R. (In re A. R.), 431 P.3d 473, 295 Or. App. 517 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*518Appellant appeals a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C). In her second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to adequately advise her of her rights in accordance with the requirements of ORS 426.100(1). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred because it "failed to correctly inform [appellant] of the purpose of the hearing, as required by ORS 426.100(1)(a)," and the state further concedes "that the judgment of commitment should be reversed." We agree. For the reasons stated in State v. S. J. F. , 247 Or.App. 321, 325-26, 269 P.3d 83 (2011), we exercise our discretion to correct the error and, accordingly, reverse the judgment. Our disposition of appellant's second assignment of error obviates the need to address her first assignment of error.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*518Appellant appeals a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C). In her second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to adequately advise her of her rights in accordance with the requirements of ORS 426.100(1). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred because it "failed to correctly inform [appellant] of the purpose of the hearing, as required by ORS 426.100(1)(a)," and the state further concedes "that the judgment of commitment should be reversed." We agree. For the reasons stated in State v. S. J. F. , 247 Or.App. 321, 325-26, 269 P.3d 83 (2011), we exercise our discretion to correct the error and, accordingly, reverse the judgment. Our disposition of appellant's second assignment of error obviates the need to address her first assignment of error.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 P.3d 473, 295 Or. App. 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-a-r-in-re-a-r-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack