State v. T.N. (In re T.N.), C130059MC; A155433.

Decision Date23 April 2014
Docket NumberC130059MC; A155433.
Citation323 P.3d 997,262 Or.App. 499
PartiesIn the Matter of T.N., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. T.N., Appellant.
CourtOregon Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Washington County Circuit Court.

James Lee Fun, Jr., Judge.

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

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Sarah M. Villanueva, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before DUNCAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and LAGESEN, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130. Appellant argues, among other contentions, 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. M.L.R., 256 Or.App. 566, 570–71, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) (holding that the “failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ORS 426.100(1) constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error review”). The state concedes that the trial court erred in that regard and that the judgment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state's concession, and, for the reasons set forth in M.L.R., exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Reversed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Pearson, 116105
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • April 23, 2014
  • State v. Z.A.B. (In re Z.A.B.)
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 2014
    ...of right to subpoena witnesses); B.H., 264 Or.App. at 187, 329 P.3d 813 (accepting concession); Respondent's Answering Brief at 2, State v. T.N., 262 Or.App. 499, 323 P.3d 997 (2014) (conceding that advice that person had right to have witnesses “testify” did not inform person of right to s......
  • State v. Z. A. B. (In re Z. A. B.)
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 2014
    ...not inform person of right to subpoena witnesses); B. H., 264 Or App at 187 (accepting concession); Respondent's Answering Brief at 2, State v. T. N., 262 Or App 499, 323 P3d 997 (2014) (No. CA A 155433) (conceding that advice that person had right to have witnesses "testify" did not inform......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT