State v. B.T. (In re B.T.), 13M0080

• Decision Date: 16 April 2014
• Docket Number: A155397.,13M0080
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the Matter of B.T., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE of Oregon, RESPONDENT, v. B.T., Appellant.

262 Or.App. 323

323 P.3d 993

In the Matter of B.T., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person.

STATE of Oregon, RESPONDENT,

v.B.T., Appellant.

13M0080; A155397.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted March 7, 2014.

Decided April 16, 2014.

Josephine County Circuit Court.

Lindi L. Baker, Judge.

Garrett A. Richardson and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Karla H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before SERCOMBE, Presiding Judge, and HADLOCK, Judge, and TOOKEY, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing him for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. He first contends that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to advise him of his right to subpoena witnesses. SeeORS 426.100(1) (providing that the court shall advise the person of, among other things, “[t]he right to subpoena witnesses”). The state concedes that the trial court's failure constitutes plain error and requires reversal. We agree, accept the state's concession, and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. See State v. M.L.R., 256 Or.App. 566, 570–72, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) (observing that “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” and exercising discretion to correct the plain error (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because we reverse the judgment on that basis, we do not address appellant's second assignment of error.

Reversed.