Summary
exercising discretion to correct a trial court's failure to advise a person alleged to have a mental illness of her rights as required by statute
Summary of this case from State v. Southern (In re Southern)Opinion
A161103
08-24-2016
In the Matter of T. L. H., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. State of Oregon, Respondent, v. T.L.H., Appellant.
Jed Peterson and O'Connor Weber LLP filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Jed Peterson and O'Connor Weber LLP filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
PER CURIAMIn this appeal, appellant seeks reversal of an order committing her for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. She contends, in an unpreserved assignment of error, that the order should be reversed because the trial court failed to inform her of her rights enumerated in ORS 426.100(1). The state concedes the error, and we agree that that court's failure to advise appellant of her rights under ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error. See State v. Ritzman , 192 Or.App. 296, 298, 84 P.3d 1129 (2004) (failure to advise the allegedly mentally ill person directly regarding the rights listed in ORS 426.100(1) or 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 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), that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Reversed.