State v. J. L. E.

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   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)            769

        PER CURIAM
         Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing 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, appellant 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 concedes 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 concession. See State v. M. M., 

, 116, 

 (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 discretion to correct the error and reverse on that basis. 

Given our disposition, we need not address the legal sufficiency of the evidence for the basic-needs determination.
        Reversed.