State v. R. C. S. (In re R. C. S.), A165507
| Decision Date | 25 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | A165507 |
| Citation | 415 P.3d 1164 (Mem),291 Or.App. 489 |
| Parties | In the Matter of R. C. S., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. R. C. S., Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
291 Or.App. 489
415 P.3d 1164 (Mem)
In the Matter of R. C. S., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness.
STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
R. C. S., Appellant.
A165507
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Submitted March 2, 2018.
April 25, 2018
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, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130 and an order prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms pursuant to ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D). Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of the right to subpoena witnesses under ORS 426.100(1)(d). See State v. Z. A. B. , 264 Or. App. 779, 780, 334 P.3d 480, adh'd to as modified on recons. , 266 Or. App. 708, 338 P.3d 802 (2014) (failure to inform a person of the right to subpoena witnesses constitutes plain error warranting reversal). The state concedes that, under our case law, the trial court plainly erred in that regard and that the error requires reversal. We agree, accept the state's concession, and, for the reasons referenced in Z. A. B ., 264 Or. App. at 780, 334 P.3d 480, exercise our discretion to correct the error.
In doing so, we reverse both the order of commitment and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing and possessing firearms. See Z. A. B. , 266 Or. App. at 709, 338 P.3d 802 (" ‘Finding that an individual "is a person with mental illness" is a condition precedent to the issuance of an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of a firearm, ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D).’ " (Quoting State v. W. B. , 264 Or. App. 777, 778, 333 P.3d 1099 (2014).) ). As we recently noted in State v. S. F. , 291...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. H. D. (In re H. D.)
... ... The state has conceded that, under State v. M. M. , 288 Or. App. 111, 405 P.3d 192 (2017), and State v. M. S. R. , 288 Or. App. 156, 403 P.3d 809 (2017), the trial court plainly erred, and the error requires reversal. For the reasons stated in those cases, ... ...
-
State v. J. D. P. (In re J. D. P.), A163511
... ... In response, the state concedes that the trial court's failure to advise appellant of the information required by ORS 426.100(1) is plain error. See State v. M. M. , 288 Or.App. 111, 116, 405 P.3d 192 ... ...
-
State v. B. V. (In re B. V.), A166228
... ... The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to provide appellant with the information that ORS 426.100(1) requires constitutes plain error. See, e.g. , State v. M. L. R. , 256 Or. App ... ...
-
State v. N. J. A. (In re N. J. A.), A165093
... ... The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to provide appellant with the information that ORS 426.100(1) requires constitutes plain error. See, e.g. , State v. M. L. R. , 256 Or. App ... ...