State v. D. A. C.

488 P.3d 836, 312 Or. App. 455

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: June 16, 2021
• Docket: A172014
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted April 9, vacated and remanded June 16, 2021

In the Matter of D. A. C., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. D. A. C., Appellant. Josephine County Circuit Court 19JU02986; A172014 488 P3d 836

Pat Wolke, Judge. Erica Hayne Friedman filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Vacated and remanded. 456 State v. D. A. C.

PER CURIAM Youth, who was adjudicated delinquent for con- duct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute third- degree assault, appeals the juvenile court’s judgment and order committing him to the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) for a period not to exceed five years. Youth argues that the juvenile court erred by not including in its written findings describing why it is in youth’s best interests to be placed in OYA custody. See ORS 419C.478(1) (in an order placing a youth offender in OYA custody, the juvenile court must “include written findings describing why it is in the best interests of the youth offender to be placed with the youth authority or the department”). The state concedes that the juvenile court erred. See State v. J. R. C., 289 Or App 848, 850, 412 P3d 1201 (2018) (ORS 419C.478(1) mandates writ- ten findings, regardless whether a party requests them, and it is error for the court not to make written findings). We agree and accept the state’s concession. We therefore vacate and remand “for the court to make such written findings as it deems appropriate to satisfy the statute’s requirements.” Id. We need not address youth’s other assignment of error. Vacated and remanded.