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

Court of Appeals of Oregon

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

423 P.3d 178, 293 Or. App. 119

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 25, 2018

DocketA166505

StatusPublished

This text of 423 P.3d 178 (State v. R. V. B. (In re R. V. 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. V. B. (In re R. V. B.), 423 P.3d 178, 293 Or. App. 119 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*120Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In her only assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise her of all of the possible results of the commitment hearing as required by ORS 426.100(1), including the possibilities related to voluntary treatment or conditional release. In response, the state concedes that the trial court's failure to advise appellant of all of the possible results of the proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1) is plain error. See State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 114-16, 405 P.3d 192 (2017) ; State v. M. S. R. , 288 Or. App. 156, 157, 403 P.3d 809 (2017). We agree that the error is plain and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in M. M., 288 Or. App. at 116, 405 P.3d 192 (nature of civil commitment proceedings, relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, gravity of the violation, and ends of justice).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*120Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In her only assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise her of all of the possible results of the commitment hearing as required by ORS 426.100(1), including the possibilities related to voluntary treatment or conditional release. In response, the state concedes that the trial court's failure to advise appellant of all of the possible results of the proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1) is plain error. See State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 114-16, 405 P.3d 192 (2017) ; State v. M. S. R. , 288 Or. App. 156, 157, 403 P.3d 809 (2017). We agree that the error is plain and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in M. M., 288 Or. App. at 116, 405 P.3d 192 (nature of civil commitment proceedings, relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, gravity of the violation, and ends of justice).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 P.3d 178, 293 Or. App. 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-v-b-in-re-r-v-b-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack