State v. I. C. B.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. I. C. B.

486 P.3d 66, 311 Or. App. 230

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 5, 2021

DocketA174936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 486 P.3d 66 (State v. I. C. B.) 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. I. C. B., 486 P.3d 66, 311 Or. App. 230 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted April 2, reversed May 5, 2021

In the Matter of I. C. B., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. I. C. B., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 20CC06756; A174936 486 P3d 66

Clara L. Rigmaiden, Judge. 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 DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 311 Or App 230 (2021) 231

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days and prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms. ORS 426.130. He contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise him of all of his rights set out in ORS 426.100(1)—in partic- ular, that the court failed to inform him of all of the possible results of the hearing as detailed in ORS 426.130. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the concession. As we have held in numerous cases, failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See gen- erally State v. M. M., 288 Or App 111, 115-16, 405 P3d 192 (2017) (reversing as plain error, where court failed to advise appellant of possible outcomes of proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1)). Given the nature of civil commitment pro- ceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

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

Submitted April 2, reversed May 5, 2021

In the Matter of I. C. B., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. I. C. B., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 20CC06756; A174936 486 P3d 66

Clara L. Rigmaiden, Judge. 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 DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 311 Or App 230 (2021) 231

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days and prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms. ORS 426.130. He contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise him of all of his rights set out in ORS 426.100(1)—in partic- ular, that the court failed to inform him of all of the possible results of the hearing as detailed in ORS 426.130. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the concession. As we have held in numerous cases, failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See gen- erally State v. M. M., 288 Or App 111, 115-16, 405 P3d 192 (2017) (reversing as plain error, where court failed to advise appellant of possible outcomes of proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1)). Given the nature of civil commitment pro- ceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 P.3d 66, 311 Or. App. 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-i-c-b-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack