State v. R. A. C.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. R. A. C.

496 P.3d 1156, 315 Or. App. 77

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 6, 2021

DocketA175558

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 496 P.3d 1156 (State v. R. A. C.) 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. R. A. C., 496 P.3d 1156, 315 Or. App. 77 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted September 3, reversed October 6, 2021

In the Matter of R. A. C., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. A. C., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 21CC00708; A175558 496 P3d 1156

Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge. Margaret Huntingon and O’Connor Weber LLC 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. 78 State v. R. A. C.

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. He contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) of all of the possible outcomes of the proceeding. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the con- cession. Failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See State v. S. N. O., 310 Or App 583, 584, 484 P3d 1131 (2021) (correcting similar error as plain error). Given the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

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

Submitted September 3, reversed October 6, 2021

In the Matter of R. A. C., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. A. C., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 21CC00708; A175558 496 P3d 1156

Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge. Margaret Huntingon and O’Connor Weber LLC 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. 78 State v. R. A. C.

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. He contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) of all of the possible outcomes of the proceeding. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the con- cession. Failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See State v. S. N. O., 310 Or App 583, 584, 484 P3d 1131 (2021) (correcting similar error as plain error). Given the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 P.3d 1156, 315 Or. App. 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-a-c-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack