Summary
explaining that "the court's failure to advise appellant of her rights under ORS 426.100 constitutes plain error and requires reversal"
Summary of this case from State v. R. C. (In re R. C.)Opinion
A162645
01-04-2018
In the Matter of L. D. M., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. L. D. M., Appellant.
Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. Appellant contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise her of her rights in accordance with ORS 426.100(1). The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to advise appellant of her rights under ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error and requires reversal. See State v. R.D.S. , 271 Or.App. 687, 688, 352 P.3d 84 (2015) ("A trial court's failure to advise a person as required is not only error, but it is plain error that we exercise our discretion to consider despite an appellant's failure to raise and preserve the issue at the hearing." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). We further conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in State v. M.L.R. , 256 Or.App. 566, 570-72, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) (nature of the civil commitment proceedings, the gravity of the violation, the ends of justice, and the lack of harmless error).
Reversed.