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 J. R. B.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 21, 2018

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

          Submitted March 6, 2017

          Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CC01203Connie L. Isgro, Judge pro tempore.

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

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary:

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

         Held:

         The trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise appellant of the possible results of voluntary treatment, conditional release, and assisted outpatient treatment. Furthermore, the record did not establish that the trial court conducted an examination to determine whether counsel had adequately advised appellant of all the possible results of the proceedings. In light of the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the interests of the parties, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice, the Court of Appeals exercised its discretion to correct the trial court's plain error.

         Reversed.

         [290 Or. 859] TOOKEY, J.

         Appellant in this civil commitment case appeals a judgment committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. On appeal, in appellant's second assignment of error, he contends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise him of all the possible results of the proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c).[1] The state contends that the trial court did not plainly err because it "adequately advised appellant directly and completely at the outset of the hearing regarding the majority of the rights outlined in ORS 426.100(1)." For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

         ORS 426.100(1) 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.