State v. J. L. E.
State v. J. L. E.
Opinion
768 February 14, 2024 No. 104 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of J. L. E., aka J. E., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. J. L. E., aka J. E., Appellant.
Baker County Circuit Court 23CC02553; A181406 Matthew B. Shirtcliff, Judge.
Submitted January 5, 2024.
Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Emily N. Snook, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge.
PER CURIAM Reversed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 330 Or App 768 (2024) 769 PER CURIAM Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days. The trial court entered that judgment after finding that, due to a mental disorder, appel- lant is unable to provide for her basic personal needs and is not receiving care necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the near future. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(B). On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a basic-needs commitment and, alternatively, that the trial court plainly erred in failing to advise her of her rights as required by ORS 426.100(1). The state con- cedes that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise appellant of the possibility of voluntary treatment and that reversal is warranted. We agree and accept the state’s con- cession. See State v. M. M., 288 Or App 111, 116, 405 P3d 192 (2017) (trial court’s failure to advise appellant of all of the possible results of civil commitment proceeding is plain error). For the reasons stated in M. M., we exercise our dis- cretion to correct the error and reverse on that basis. Id. Given our disposition, we need not address the legal suffi- ciency of the evidence for the basic-needs determination.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.