State v. B. V. (In re B. V.)
Opinion
*414Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) and an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D). Appellant contends 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). The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to provide appellant with the information that ORS 426.100(1) requires constitutes plain error. See, e.g. , State v. M. L. R. ,
In doing so, we reverse both the judgment of commitment and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing and possessing firearms. See State v. R. C. S. ,
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
419 P.3d 807 (State v. B. V. (In re B. V.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.