State v. S. W. (In re S. W.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. S. W. (In re S. W.)

435 P.3d 835, 296 Or. App. 219

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided February 21, 2019·No. A168464·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*836 *220Appellant appeals an order committing him for a period not to exceed 180 days, ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C), and an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms, ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D). Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to fully advise him of his rights in accordance with the requirements of ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, appellant contends that the trial court failed to advise him that the possible results of the proceeding included voluntary treatment or conditional release. See ORS 426.130(1) and (2) (setting out possible results of proceeding). The state has conceded that, under State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 405 P.3d 192 (2017), and State v. M. T ., 244 Or. App. 299, 258 P.3d 1288 (2011), the trial court plainly erred and the orders should be reversed. For the reasons stated in M. M. , 288 Or. App. at 116, 405 P.3d 192, we exercise our discretion to correct the error and, accordingly, reverse the orders. See State v. R. C. S. , 291 Or. App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both commitment judgment and order prohibiting the appellant from purchasing and possessing firearms).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*836 *220Appellant appeals an order committing him for a period not to exceed 180 days, ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C), and an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms, ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D). Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to fully advise him of his rights in accordance with the requirements of ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, appellant contends that the trial court failed to advise him that the possible results of the proceeding included voluntary treatment or conditional release. See ORS 426.130(1) and (2) (setting out possible results of proceeding). The state has conceded that, under State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 405 P.3d 192 (2017), and State v. M. T ., 244 Or. App. 299, 258 P.3d 1288 (2011), the trial court plainly erred and the orders should be reversed. For the reasons stated in M. M. , 288 Or. App. at 116, 405 P.3d 192, we exercise our discretion to correct the error and, accordingly, reverse the orders. See State v. R. C. S. , 291 Or. App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both commitment judgment and order prohibiting the appellant from purchasing and possessing firearms).

Reversed.

State v. S. W. (In re S. W.), 435 P.3d 835, 296 Or. App. 219 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

435 P.3d 835 (State v. S. W. (In re S. W.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related