State v. T. N.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. T. N.

323 P.3d 997, 262 Or. App. 499

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 23, 2014

DocketC130059MC; A155433

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 323 P.3d 997 (State v. T. N.) 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. T. N., 323 P.3d 997, 262 Or. App. 499 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130. Appellant argues, among other contentions, that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of the right to subpoena witnesses under ORS 426.100(1)(d). See State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-71, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (holding that the “failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1) constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error review”). The state concedes that the trial court erred in that regard and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and, for the reasons set forth in M. L. R., exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130. Appellant argues, among other contentions, that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of the right to subpoena witnesses under ORS 426.100(1)(d). See State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-71, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (holding that the “failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1) constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error review”). The state concedes that the trial court erred in that regard and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and, for the reasons set forth in M. L. R., exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 P.3d 997, 262 Or. App. 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-t-n-orctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack