State v. H. S. L. (In re H. S. L.), 419 P.3d 808, 292 Or. App. 329 (2018)

June 6, 2018 · Court of Appeals of Oregon · A164036

419 P.3d 808, 292 Or. App. 329

In the Matter of H. S. L., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
H. S. L., Appellant.

A164036

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted May 3, 2018.
June 6, 2018

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

Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him of the possible results of the commitment hearing as required by ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, he asserts that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to inform him of the possibility of voluntary treatment and conditional release. In response, the state concedes 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's failure to advise appellant of all of the possible results of the proceeding, as required by ORS 426.100(1), is plain error. We agree that the error is plain, and-for the reasons set forth in M. M. and M. S. R. -exercise our discretion to correct the error. Our disposition of appellant's second assignment of error obviates the need to address his first and third assignments of error.

Reversed.