State v. T. W.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. T. W.

370 P.3d 1273, 277 Or. App. 388

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 6, 2016

Docket14CC02303; A158040

StatusPublished

This text of 370 P.3d 1273 (State v. T. W.) 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. W., 370 P.3d 1273, 277 Or. App. 388 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. He contends, in an unpreserved assignment of error, that the order should be reversed because the trial court failed to inform him, as required by ORS 426.100(1), of some of the possible results of the hearing and his right to subpoena witnesses. The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court’s failure to fully comply with ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error. See State v. Ritzman, 192 Or App 296, 298, 84 P3d 1129 (2004) (failure to advise the allegedly mentally ill person directly regarding the rights listed in ORS 426.100(1) or to conduct an examination on the record to determine whether a valid waiver of the right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily made is plain error). We further conclude, for the reasons stated in State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-72, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (nature of the civil commitment proceedings, the gravity of the violation, the ends of justice, and the lack of harmless error), that it is appropriate to 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

In this appeal, appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. He contends, in an unpreserved assignment of error, that the order should be reversed because the trial court failed to inform him, as required by ORS 426.100(1), of some of the possible results of the hearing and his right to subpoena witnesses. The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court’s failure to fully comply with ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error. See State v. Ritzman, 192 Or App 296, 298, 84 P3d 1129 (2004) (failure to advise the allegedly mentally ill person directly regarding the rights listed in ORS 426.100(1) or to conduct an examination on the record to determine whether a valid waiver of the right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily made is plain error). We further conclude, for the reasons stated in State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-72, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (nature of the civil commitment proceedings, the gravity of the violation, the ends of justice, and the lack of harmless error), that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 P.3d 1273, 277 Or. App. 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-t-w-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack