State v. S. S.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. S. S.

345 Or. App. 268

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 26, 2025

DocketA186876

StatusUnpublished

This text of 345 Or. App. 268 (State v. S. S.) 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. S., 345 Or. App. 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

268 November 26, 2025 No. 1026

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of S. S., aka S. S., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. S. S., aka S. S., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 25CC00692; A186876

Debra E. Velure, Judge. Submitted October 10, 2025. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Reversed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 268 (2025) 269

EGAN, J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days and prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms. Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to advise her of all of the possible results of the proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c)—specifically, the possibility that the court could find that she was not a person with mental illness and order outpatient treatment, ORS 426.130(1)(b)(B). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in that regard and that reversal is warranted. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858, 862, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (trial court’s failure to advise appellant of all the possible results of civil commitment proceeding is plain error). Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.1 Id. at 863. Reversed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

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

268 November 26, 2025 No. 1026

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of S. S., aka S. S., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. S. S., aka S. S., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 25CC00692; A186876

Debra E. Velure, Judge. Submitted October 10, 2025. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Reversed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 268 (2025) 269

EGAN, J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days and prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms. Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to advise her of all of the possible results of the proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c)—specifically, the possibility that the court could find that she was not a person with mental illness and order outpatient treatment, ORS 426.130(1)(b)(B). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in that regard and that reversal is warranted. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858, 862, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (trial court’s failure to advise appellant of all the possible results of civil commitment proceeding is plain error). Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.1 Id. at 863. Reversed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 Or. App. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-s-s-orctapp-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack