State v. M. S. R.

Oct 4, 2017
A163445
Versions:288 Or App 156

Joseph DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Susan Yorke, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Reversed.

PER CURIAM

Appellant in this civil commitment case appeals a judgment of the trial court committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. On appeal, in his second assignment of error,1 appellant contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise him in accordance with ORS 426.100(1).2 Specifically, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him of all of the possible results of the proceeding, including the possibility of voluntary treatment or conditional release. As we explained in State v. M. M., 288 Or App 111, 405 P3d 192 (2017), we agree with appellant that it is not reasonably in dispute that a trial court is required to advise a person alleged to have a mental illness of all of the possible results of the proceeding, and that the trial court committed plain error in failing to do so. See State v. M. T., 244 Or App 299, 305, 258 P3d 1288 (2011) (“Importantly, [information about the possible results of the proceedings] includes information about possible results—voluntary treatment and conditional release—that can be secured only with the cooperation of the allegedly mentally ill person. Without notice of those possible results, a person is not in a position to adequately protect his or her interests.”). Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in M. M., we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. 288 Or App at 116; see also State v. S. J. F., 247 Or App 321, 325, 269 P3d 83 (2011) (“plain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is justified by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice”).

Reversed.

Notes

1
Appellant also raises an additional assignment of error challenging the trial court’s judgment of commitment. We need not address that assignment in light of our disposition of appellant’s second assignment of error.
2
Pursuant to ORS 426.100(1), “[a]t the time the person alleged to have a mental illness is brought before the court, the court shall advise the person of the following:
“(a) The reason for being brought before the court;
“(b) The nature of the proceedings;
“(c) The possible results of the proceedings;
“(d) The right to subpoena witnesses; and
“(e) The person’s rights regarding representation by or appointment of counsel.”