State v. J. M. S. (In re J. M. S.)

• Docket Number: A178535
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: In the Matter of J. M. S., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. v. J. M. S., Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

1

329 Or.App. 828

In the Matter of J. M. S., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
v.
J. M. S., Appellant.

A178535

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 28, 2023

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted November 3, 2023

Baker County Circuit Court 22CC02002 Russell B. West, Senior Judge.

Harrison Latto fled the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge.

2

PER CURIAM [329 Or.App. 829]

Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. He asserts that the trial court plainly erred by failing to fully advise him of his rights under ORS 426.100(1) when he was brought before the court. The state concedes the error, and we accept the state's concession. Under ORS 426.100(1), when a person alleged to have a mental illness is brought before the court, the court must advise the person of the reason for being brought before the court, the nature of the proceedings, the possible outcomes, the right to subpoena witnesses, and the person's right to counsel. State v. A. R. G., 316 Or.App. 816, 818, 502 P.3d 1203 (2022). In this case, the court did not provide all of the required information, including failing to advise appellant of his right to subpoena witnesses. We exercise discretion to correct the plain error in light of its gravity. See id. at 819 (similar).

Reversed.