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

Court of Appeals of Oregon

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

423 P.3d 813, 293 Or. App. 428

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 15, 2018

DocketA166504

StatusPublished

This text of 423 P.3d 813 (State v. R. M. C. (In re R. M. 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. M. C. (In re R. M. C.), 423 P.3d 813, 293 Or. App. 428 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*429Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant contends, in an unpreserved assignment of error, that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to inform her, as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c), of some of the possible results of the hearing. The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to fully comply with ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error. See State v. Ritzman , 192 Or. App. 296, 298-99, 84 P.3d 1129 (2004) (failure to advise a person directly regarding the rights listed in ORS 426.100(1) or conduct an examination on the record to determine whether a valid waiver of the right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily made is plain error). We further conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in State v. M. L. R. , 256 Or. App. 566, 570-72, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) (nature of the civil commitment 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

*429Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant contends, in an unpreserved assignment of error, that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to inform her, as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c), of some of the possible results of the hearing. The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to fully comply with ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error. See State v. Ritzman , 192 Or. App. 296, 298-99, 84 P.3d 1129 (2004) (failure to advise a person directly regarding the rights listed in ORS 426.100(1) or conduct an examination on the record to determine whether a valid waiver of the right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily made is plain error). We further conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in State v. M. L. R. , 256 Or. App. 566, 570-72, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) (nature of the civil commitment proceedings, the gravity of the violation, the ends of justice, and the lack of harmless error).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 P.3d 813, 293 Or. App. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-m-c-in-re-r-m-c-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack