Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re M. M.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

October 4, 2017

In the Matter of M. M., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness.
v.
M. M., Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,

          Submitted August 29, 2017

         Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CC03648; Connie L. Isgro, Judge pro tempore.

          Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Nathan Riemersma, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Egan, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Appellant in this civil commitment case appeals a judgment committing him to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of possible outcomes of the proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1).

         Held:

         In light of our decision in State v. M. T., 244 Or.App. 299, 258 P.3d 1288 (2011), it is not reasonably in dispute that, under ORS 426.100(1), a trial court is required to advise a person alleged to have a mental illness of all the possible results of the proceeding. The trial court plainly erred in failing to do so in this case. Furthermore, in light of the nature of the proceedings, the relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice, it is appropriate for the Court of Appeals to exercise discretion to address and correct the trial court's plain error in this case.

         Reversed.

         [288 Or. 112] EGAN, P. J.

         Appellant in this civil commitment case appeals a judgment committing him to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of possible outcomes of the proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1).[1] The state responds that the trial court did not commit plain error when advising appellant of the possible results of the commitment hearing. As explained below, we reverse.

         "ORS 426.100(1) requires a trial court conducting a civil commitment hearing to advise the allegedly mentally ill person of the reason for, nature of, and possible results of the hearing, as well as the person's rights to subpoena witnesses and be represented by counsel, including appointed counsel." State v. M.L.R., 256 Or.App. 566, 569, 303 P.3d 954 (2013). The statute provides:

"At the time the person alleged to have a mental illness is brought before the court, the court shall advise the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.