Full text
State v. S. B.
No. 355 May 30, 2024 777
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of S. B., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. S. B., Appellant. Curry County Circuit Court 23CC05450; A182345
Jesse C. Margolis, Judge. Submitted April 16, 2024. Joseph R. DeBin 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, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Reversed.
778 State v. S. B.
EGAN, J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the pur- chase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental illness. We reverse the judgement and order.1 Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to give the advice of rights required by ORS 426.100(1). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred and that reversal is warranted. We agree and accept the state’s concession. At the beginning of the civil commit- ment hearing, the trial court did not advise appellant of all the possible results of the hearing. See State v. J. R. B., 290 Or App 858, 862, 418 P3d 38 (2018) (trial court’s failure to advise appellant of all the possible results of civil commit- ment proceeding is plain error); see also State v. M. M., 288 Or App 111, 116, 405 P3d 192 (2017) (same). Nor is there any indication that appellant waived the mandatory procedural protections afforded by ORS chapter 426. State v. T. C., 327 Or App 558, 564, 536 P3d 591 (2023), rev den, 371 Or 825 (2024). We exercise our discretion to correct the plain error. Id. at 571. Reversed.
1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.