State v. B. L. K. (In re B. L. K.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. B. L. K. (In re B. L. K.)

422 P.3d 431, 293 Or. App. 227

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 1, 2018

DocketA163136

StatusPublished

This text of 422 P.3d 431 (State v. B. L. K. (In re B. L. K.)) 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. B. L. K. (In re B. L. K.), 422 P.3d 431, 293 Or. App. 227 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*228Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant con-tends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of all the possible results of the proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c), including the possibility of conditional release or voluntary treatment. The state concedes that, under State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 114-16, 405 P.3d 192 (2017), and State v. M. S. R. , 288 Or. App. 156, 157, 403 P.3d 809 (2017), the trial court committed plain error that warrants reversal. We agree with the state, accept the concession, and, for the reasons stated in those cases, exercise our discretion to correct the error. Because we reverse the judgment on that basis, we do not address appellant's first assignment of error.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*228Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant con-tends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of all the possible results of the proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c), including the possibility of conditional release or voluntary treatment. The state concedes that, under State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 114-16, 405 P.3d 192 (2017), and State v. M. S. R. , 288 Or. App. 156, 157, 403 P.3d 809 (2017), the trial court committed plain error that warrants reversal. We agree with the state, accept the concession, and, for the reasons stated in those cases, exercise our discretion to correct the error. Because we reverse the judgment on that basis, we do not address appellant's first assignment of error.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 P.3d 431, 293 Or. App. 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-b-l-k-in-re-b-l-k-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack