State v. C. K.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. C. K.

324 Or. App. 299

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 15, 2023

DocketA179198

StatusUnpublished

This text of 324 Or. App. 299 (State v. C. 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. C. K., 324 Or. App. 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Submitted January 6, reversed February 15, 2023

In the Matter of C. K., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. C. K., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 22CC04382; A179198

Julia A. Philbrook, Judge pro tempore. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. SHORR, P. J. Reversed. 300 State v. C. K.

SHORR, P. J. Appellant appeals from a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days based on a finding that he has a mental illness. ORS 426.130. He asserts that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to provide the advice of rights required by ORS 426.100(1). Appellant further asserts that the record was legally insufficient for the trial court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has a mental disorder that renders him a danger to himself and others. The state concedes the error in failing to advise appellant of his rights. We agree that failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See State v. R. R. M., 310 Or App 380, 381, 484 P3d 408 (2021) (conclud- ing that a trial court’s failure to advise an appellant of their right under ORS 426.100(1) to subpoena witnesses is plain error). Because of the nature of civil commitment proceed- ings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Given our disposition, we need not address appellant’s assignment of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence. Reversed.

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

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Submitted January 6, reversed February 15, 2023

In the Matter of C. K., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. C. K., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 22CC04382; A179198

Julia A. Philbrook, Judge pro tempore. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. SHORR, P. J. Reversed. 300 State v. C. K.

SHORR, P. J. Appellant appeals from a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days based on a finding that he has a mental illness. ORS 426.130. He asserts that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to provide the advice of rights required by ORS 426.100(1). Appellant further asserts that the record was legally insufficient for the trial court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that he has a mental disorder that renders him a danger to himself and others. The state concedes the error in failing to advise appellant of his rights. We agree that failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See State v. R. R. M., 310 Or App 380, 381, 484 P3d 408 (2021) (conclud- ing that a trial court’s failure to advise an appellant of their right under ORS 426.100(1) to subpoena witnesses is plain error). Because of the nature of civil commitment proceed- ings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Given our disposition, we need not address appellant’s assignment of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 Or. App. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-c-k-orctapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack