445
Submitted March 30, vacated and remanded May 12, 2021
In the Matter of M. W. L.,
a Youth.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
M. W. L.,
Appellant.
Columbia County Circuit Court
19JU06240; A172872
Cathleen B. Callahan, Judge.
Lindsey Burrows and O’Connor Weber LLC filed the
briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Vacated and remanded.
446 State v. M. W. L.
PER CURIAM
In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, youth
seeks reversal of the juvenile court’s order committing him
to the custody of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). Youth
admitted to engaging in acts that, if he were an adult, would
constitute first-degree criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. The juvenile court accepted youth’s admissions and
committed him to OYA for a period not to exceed five years.
On appeal, youth asserts two assignments of error. In the
first, youth argues that the court plainly erred when it committed youth based on findings that are not supported by
sworn testimony or evidence submitted into the record. We
reject that plain error argument without further discussion.
See State v. J. R. C.,
(2018) (rejecting same arguments in a plain error posture).
In a second assignment of error, youth argues that
the juvenile court erred when it failed to make written findings in the order to support its conclusion that “[i]t is in the
best interest and welfare of the youth that he be placed in
the legal custody of the Oregon Youth Authority[.]” The state
concedes that the juvenile court erred by omitting written
findings explaining why commitment was in youth’s best
interest. We agree with and accept the state’s concession.
Under ORS 419C.478(1), a juvenile court may commit a youth into the custody of OYA. That statute requires
that, “[i]n any order issued under this section, the court
shall include written findings describing why it is in the
best interests of the youth offender to be placed with the
youth authority.” That statutory mandate is unambiguous and does not require a request by a party to include
written findings, and written findings are required even if
there is evidence to support the juvenile court’s order. State
ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C. N. W.,
(2007). Accordingly, the juvenile court erred in failing
to make the required written findings, and we vacate and
remand “for the court to make such written findings as it
deems appropriate to satisfy the statute’s requirements.”
J. R. C.,
