State v. S. J. F., 269 P.3d 83

Civil commitment case in which the trial court committed appellant to Oregon Health Authority for mental illness and inability to meet basic needs; record lacks presence of appellant at hearing; trial court did not give ORS 426.100(1) rights or determine waiver; state concedes violation but argues harmless due to counsel advising rights; majority holds violation constitutes plain error and reverses; court discusses standards for plain error review in civil commitment contexts; amendments to ORS 19.415 not applicable to this appeal; dissent argues not appropriate to exercise discretion to review unpreserved plain error and would affirm; cited authorities emphasize full and fair hearing and potential harm from deprivation of liberty and stigma.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 426.100(1) violation is plain error requiring reversal	Appellant	State	Yes, reversal justified
Whether the violation was harmless due to counsel advising rights	Appellant received rights via counsel	Counsel's discussion does not prove full compliance	Harmlessness not established; plain error reversal warranted

State v. Ritzman, 192 Or App 296 (2004) (holding that failure to advise rights is plain error but harmless where written notice contained required information and was read to the defendant)
State v. May, 131 Or App 570 (1994) (preservation of rights required; counsel’s failure does not waive rights; need for advisement or waiver examination)
State v. Scharf, 201 Or App 71 (2005) (harmlessness depends on whether the defendant read and signed formal citation)
State v. M. T., 244 Or App 299 (2011) (plain error in failure to advise may be reviewed; factors for discretion in unpreserved claims)
State v. Allison, 129 Or App 47 (1994) (reversal when counsel stipulated to commitment and no advice on rights)