State v. R. V. B.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 364 July 25, 2018 119 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE TATE OF OREGON In the Matter of R. V. B., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. V. B., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 17CC06945; A166505 Maurice K. Merten, Judge. Submitted June 1, 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 Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 120 State v. R. V. B. PER CURIAM Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In her only assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise her of all of the possible results of the commitment hearing as required by ORS 426.100(1), including the possibilities related to voluntary treatment or conditional release. In response, the state concedes that the trial court’s failure to advise appellant of all of the possible results of the proceeding as required by ORS 426.100(1) is plain error. See State v. M. M., 288 Or App 111, 114-16, 405 P3d 192 (2017); State v. M. S. R., 288 Or App 156, 157, 403 P3d 809 (2017). We agree that the error is plain and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in M. M., 288 Or App at 116 (nature of civil commitment proceedings, relative interests of the parties in those proceedings, gravity of the violation, and ends of justice). Reversed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
