State v. C. S. (In re C. S.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. C. S. (In re C. S.)

433 P.3d 507, 295 Or. App. 785

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 24, 2019

DocketA168500

StatusPublished

This text of 433 P.3d 507 (State v. C. S. (In re C. S.)) 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. S. (In re C. S.), 433 P.3d 507, 295 Or. App. 785 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*786Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him as required by ORS 426.100(1). In response, the state concedes that the trial court plainly erred and that the order of commitment should be reversed. See State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 116, 405 P.3d 192 (2017) (holding that "the trial court's failure to advise appellant of all of the possible results of the proceedings was plain error"); State v. Z. A. B. , 264 Or. App. 779, 780, 334 P.3d 480, adh'd to as modified on recons. , 266 Or. App. 708, 338 P.3d 802 (2014) (failure to inform a person of the right to subpoena witnesses constitutes plain error). We agree that the error is plain and we exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in State v. S. J. F. , 247 Or. App. 321, 325, 269 P.3d 83 (2011) ("[P]lain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is justified by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice."). Consequently, we reverse the order.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*786Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him as required by ORS 426.100(1). In response, the state concedes that the trial court plainly erred and that the order of commitment should be reversed. See State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 116, 405 P.3d 192 (2017) (holding that "the trial court's failure to advise appellant of all of the possible results of the proceedings was plain error"); State v. Z. A. B. , 264 Or. App. 779, 780, 334 P.3d 480, adh'd to as modified on recons. , 266 Or. App. 708, 338 P.3d 802 (2014) (failure to inform a person of the right to subpoena witnesses constitutes plain error). We agree that the error is plain and we exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in State v. S. J. F. , 247 Or. App. 321, 325, 269 P.3d 83 (2011) ("[P]lain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is justified by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice."). Consequently, we reverse the order.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 P.3d 507, 295 Or. App. 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-c-s-in-re-c-s-orctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack