State v. N. S.-R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. N. S.-R.

323 P.3d 520, 261 Or. App. 552

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 5, 2014

Docket13CC00500; A155116

StatusPublished

This text of 323 P.3d 520 (State v. N. S.-R.) 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. N. S.-R., 323 P.3d 520, 261 Or. App. 552 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him as a mentally ill person for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise him of his right to subpoena witnesses. ORS 426.100(l)(d). The state concedes that the court’s failure constitutes plain error. See State v. S. J. F., 247 Or App 321, 326, 269 P3d 83 (2011) (a violation of ORS 426.100(1) is plain error). We have held that a violation of ORS 426.100(1) is not harmless where the record does not demonstrate that the “appellant was adequately advised of his rights or that he, in fact, exercised those rights at the hearing.” State v. N. S., 201 Or App 71, 74, 116 P3d 949 (2005). We agree with and accept the state’s concession, and for the reasons stated in S. J. F., we exercise our discretion to correct that error and reverse. 247 Or App at 325. Because we reverse the judgment on that basis, we do not address appellant’s second assignment of error, which is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the commitment order.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him as a mentally ill person for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise him of his right to subpoena witnesses. ORS 426.100(l)(d). The state concedes that the court’s failure constitutes plain error. See State v. S. J. F., 247 Or App 321, 326, 269 P3d 83 (2011) (a violation of ORS 426.100(1) is plain error). We have held that a violation of ORS 426.100(1) is not harmless where the record does not demonstrate that the “appellant was adequately advised of his rights or that he, in fact, exercised those rights at the hearing.” State v. N. S., 201 Or App 71, 74, 116 P3d 949 (2005). We agree with and accept the state’s concession, and for the reasons stated in S. J. F., we exercise our discretion to correct that error and reverse. 247 Or App at 325. Because we reverse the judgment on that basis, we do not address appellant’s second assignment of error, which is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the commitment order.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 P.3d 520, 261 Or. App. 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-n-s-r-orctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack