State v. R. R.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. R. R.

458 P.3d 1141, 302 Or. App. 645

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 4, 2020

DocketA172516

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 P.3d 1141 (State v. R. 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. R. R., 458 P.3d 1141, 302 Or. App. 645 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted February 7, reversed March 4, 2020

In the Matter of R. R., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. R., Appellant. Coos County Circuit Court 6917; A172516 458 P3d 1141

Martin E. Stone, Judge. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 646 State v. R. R.

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals an order committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. He asserts that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him of all of his rights as required by ORS 426.100(1) and, in particular, failed to adequately explain all of the possible results of the proceeding. See ORS 426.100(1)(c) (court shall advise allegedly mentally ill person of the possible results of the proceedings). The state concedes that the court’s failure constitutes plain error. We agree and accept the state’s concession. We exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons expressed in State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-72, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (plain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is jus- tified by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice). Reversed.

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

Submitted February 7, reversed March 4, 2020

In the Matter of R. R., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. R., Appellant. Coos County Circuit Court 6917; A172516 458 P3d 1141

Martin E. Stone, Judge. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 646 State v. R. R.

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals an order committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. He asserts that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him of all of his rights as required by ORS 426.100(1) and, in particular, failed to adequately explain all of the possible results of the proceeding. See ORS 426.100(1)(c) (court shall advise allegedly mentally ill person of the possible results of the proceedings). The state concedes that the court’s failure constitutes plain error. We agree and accept the state’s concession. We exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons expressed in State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-72, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (plain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is jus- tified by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice). Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 P.3d 1141, 302 Or. App. 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-r-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack