State v. Grellert
| Decision Date | 23 October 1996 |
| Citation | 144 Or.App. 201,925 P.2d 161 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Edward Grellert, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Edward GRELLERT, Appellant. 9602-61606; CA A92487. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Laura Graser, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Mary H. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before DEITS, P.J., and De MUNIZ and HASELTON, JJ.
An allegedly mentally ill person (appellant), appeals from a civil commitment order in which the court found him to be mentally ill and committed him for 180 days. ORS 426.135. We reverse and remand.
On appeal, appellant first argues that the trial court erred in not adequately advising him pursuant to ORS 426.100(1) of his rights relating to the commitment proceeding. ORS 426.100(1) provides:
The trial court advised appellant of the reason that he was in court, the nature of the proceedings, the possible results of the proceedings and the right to representation. The court also told him that "[I]f you have any witnesses that you want me to hear from, I will hear any of your own witnesses." Appellant argues that the court's comment regarding appellant's witnesses did not satisfy the requirement of ORS 426.100(1)(d) that he be advised of his right to subpoena witnesses. We agree. The court's expression of its willingness to hear appellant's witnesses could not reasonably be understood to advise appellant that he also had available to him the ability to subpoena witnesses.
As we held in State v. Allison, 129 Or.App. 47, 877 P.2d 660 (1994), the advice of rights required by ORS 426.100 is designed to ensure that allegedly mentally ill persons receive the benefit of a full and fair hearing. The court's advice of rights here was not complete and, therefore, appellant did not receive that benefit. Accordingly, we remand this case for further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. S.J.F. (In re S.J.F.)
... ... Allison, 129 Or.App. at 50, 877 P.2d 660. If a court does not provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1), the person does not receive that benefit. State v. Grellert, 144 Or.App. 201, 203, 925 P.2d 161 (1996). Thus, as we have held, failure to provide a person with that information constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error [269 P.3d 87] review. Tardanico, 132 Or.App. at 231, 888 P.2d 15. In this case, the state concedes that the trial ... ...
-
State v. K.M. (In re K. M.)
... ... [State v. ] Allison [, 129 Or.App. 47, 50, 877 P.2d 660 (1994) ]. If a court does not provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1), the person does not receive that benefit. State v. Grellert, 144 Or.App. 201, 203, 925 P.2d 161 (1996). Thus, as we have held, failure to provide a person with that information constitutes an egregious' error that justifies plain error review. [State v. ] Tardanico, [132 Or.App. 230, 231, 888 P.2d 15 (1994) ].Here, the court plainly erred in not giving the ... ...
-
State v. Buffum
... ... We did not suggest that counsel's active involvement in the proceeding, including in the appellant's decision to stipulate to commitment, was relevant to our disposition of the case ... In Grellert, the advice that the trial court gave was generally adequate, but it failed to tell the appellant of his right to subpoena witnesses. We stated that the "court's advice of rights here was not complete and, therefore, appellant did not receive that benefit. Accordingly, we remand this case for ... ...
-
State v. S. J. F. (In re S. J. F.), A141821
... ... If a court does not provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1), the person does "not receive that benefit." State v. Grellert, 144 Or App 201, 203, 925 P2d 161 (1996). Thus, as we have held, failure to provide a person with that information constitutes an "egregious" error that justifies plain error review. Tardanico, 132 Or App at 231. In this case, the state concedes that the trial court violated ORS 426.100(1) and ... ...