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

Court of Appeals of Oregon

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

418 P.3d 778, 292 Or. App. 210

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 31, 2018

DocketA165702

StatusPublished

This text of 418 P.3d 778 (State v. R. C. (In re R. 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. C. (In re R. C.), 418 P.3d 778, 292 Or. App. 210 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*211Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130. Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of the information required by ORS 426.100(1). See State v. L. D. M. , 289 Or. App. 768, 769, 408 P.3d 272 (2018) (explaining that "the court's failure to advise appellant of her rights under ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error and requires reversal"). The state concedes that, under our case law, the trial court plainly erred in that regard and that the error warrants reversal. We agree, accept the state's concession, and, for the reasons referenced in L. D. M. , exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*211Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130. Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of the information required by ORS 426.100(1). See State v. L. D. M. , 289 Or. App. 768, 769, 408 P.3d 272 (2018) (explaining that "the court's failure to advise appellant of her rights under ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error and requires reversal"). The state concedes that, under our case law, the trial court plainly erred in that regard and that the error warrants reversal. We agree, accept the state's concession, and, for the reasons referenced in L. D. M. , exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 P.3d 778, 292 Or. App. 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-c-in-re-r-c-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack