Opinion
A166110
07-05-2018
In the Matter of B.H., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. B.H., Appellant.
Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.
PER CURIAMAppellant appeals a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130 and an order prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms. She argues that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to fully advise her that the possible results of the proceeding included voluntary treatment or conditional release. See ORS 426.100(1) (c) ; ORS 426.130(1), (2). The state concedes that, under State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 405 P.3d 192 (2017), and State v. M. S. R. , 288 Or. App. 156, 403 P.3d 809 (2017), the trial court committed plain error that warrants reversal. We agree with the state, accept the concession, and, for the reasons stated in those cases, exercise our discretion to correct the error.
As in State v. R. C. S. , 291 Or. App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018), we reverse both the commitment judgment and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing and possessing firearms. See also
Reversed.
State v. S. F. , 291 Or. App. 261, 267 n 1, 420 P.3d 691 (2018) (noting subsequent enactment of statutory scheme for extreme risk protection orders concerning deadly weapons, including firearms, now codified as ORS 166.525 to 166.543 ).