State v. S. N. O.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. S. N. O.

484 P.3d 1131, 310 Or. App. 583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 7, 2021

DocketA174593

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 484 P.3d 1131 (State v. S. N. O.) 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. S. N. O., 484 P.3d 1131, 310 Or. App. 583 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted March 5, reversed April 7, 2021

In the Matter of S. N. O., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. S. N. O., Appellant. Deschutes County Circuit Court 20CC05089; A174593 484 P3d 1131

Alison M. Emerson, Judge. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 584 State v. S. N. O.

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days and an order prohibiting her from pur- chasing or possessing firearms. ORS 426.130. She contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise her pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) of all of the possible outcomes of the proceeding. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the concession. Failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See gen- erally State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858, 862, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (citing cases concluding such error was plain error). Given the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the rela- tive interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

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

Submitted March 5, reversed April 7, 2021

In the Matter of S. N. O., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. S. N. O., Appellant. Deschutes County Circuit Court 20CC05089; A174593 484 P3d 1131

Alison M. Emerson, Judge. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 584 State v. S. N. O.

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days and an order prohibiting her from pur- chasing or possessing firearms. ORS 426.130. She contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise her pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) of all of the possible outcomes of the proceeding. The state concedes the error. We agree and accept the concession. Failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See gen- erally State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858, 862, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (citing cases concluding such error was plain error). Given the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the rela- tive interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise discretion to correct the error. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.3d 1131, 310 Or. App. 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-s-n-o-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack