State v. R. W.

250                 February 26, 2025               No. 157

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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 R. W.,
         a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                  STATE OF OREGON,
                       Respondent,
                            v.
                          R. W.,
                        Appellant.
             Umatilla County Circuit Court
                  24CC03078; A184715

  Eva J. Temple, Judge.
  Submitted January 10, 2025.
   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 Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  EGAN, J.
  Reversed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                           251

           EGAN, J.
        Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not
to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered the
judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered
from a mental illness. We reverse.1
          Appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred
in failing to advise appellant of her right to subpoena witnesses as required by ORS 426.100(1)(d). The state concedes
that the trial court plainly erred and that reversal is warranted. We agree with and accept the state’s concession. See
State v. R. R. M., 

, 

 (2021)
(failure to provide such statutory advice of rights constitutes
plain error).
Given the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the
ends of justice, we exercise discretion to correct the error. 

           Reversed.




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.