State v. R. B. (In re R. B.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. R. B. (In re R. B.)

419 P.3d 805, 292 Or. App. 411

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 13, 2018

DocketA165506

StatusPublished

This text of 419 P.3d 805 (State v. R. B. (In re R. 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. R. B. (In re R. B.), 419 P.3d 805, 292 Or. App. 411 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*412Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of all the "possible results of the proceedings" as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c). The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to provide appellant with the information that ORS 426.100(1) requires constitutes plain error. See, e.g. , State v. M. L. R. , 256 Or. App. 566, 570-71, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) ("[The] failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1) constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error review."). We further conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in M. L. R. , id . at 570-72, 303 P.3d 954 (nature of the civil *806commitment proceedings, the gravity of the violation, the ends of justice, and the lack of harmless error).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*412Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of all the "possible results of the proceedings" as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c). The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to provide appellant with the information that ORS 426.100(1) requires constitutes plain error. See, e.g. , State v. M. L. R. , 256 Or. App. 566, 570-71, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) ("[The] failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1) constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error review."). We further conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in M. L. R. , id . at 570-72, 303 P.3d 954 (nature of the civil *806commitment proceedings, the gravity of the violation, the ends of justice, and the lack of harmless error).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 P.3d 805, 292 Or. App. 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-b-in-re-r-b-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack