State v. Z. M. H.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Z. M. H.

505 P.3d 1104, 318 Or. App. 426

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 16, 2022

DocketA176928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 P.3d 1104 (State v. Z. M. H.) 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. Z. M. H., 505 P.3d 1104, 318 Or. App. 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted February 4, reversed March 16, 2022

In the Matter of Z. M. H., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. Z. M. H., Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 21CC04581; A176928 505 P3d 1104

John L. Collins, Judge. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 318 Or App 426 (2022) 427

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days and prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms, based on a finding that he has a mental illness. ORS 426.130. He contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) of all of the possible results of the proceeding. The state con- cedes the error. We agree that failure to provide such stat- utory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See State v. R. A. C., 315 Or App 77, 496 P3d 1156 (2021) (correcting similar error as plain error). Given the nature of civil com- mitment proceedings, the relative 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 February 4, reversed March 16, 2022

In the Matter of Z. M. H., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. Z. M. H., Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 21CC04581; A176928 505 P3d 1104

John L. Collins, Judge. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. Cite as 318 Or App 426 (2022) 427

PER CURIAM Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days and prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms, based on a finding that he has a mental illness. ORS 426.130. He contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) of all of the possible results of the proceeding. The state con- cedes the error. We agree that failure to provide such stat- utory advice of rights constitutes plain error. See State v. R. A. C., 315 Or App 77, 496 P3d 1156 (2021) (correcting similar error as plain error). Given the nature of civil com- mitment proceedings, the relative 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)

505 P.3d 1104, 318 Or. App. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-z-m-h-orctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack