Case Name: In the Matter of H. D., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. H. D., Appellant.
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2018-04-25
Citations: 415 P.3d 1153
Docket Number: A165281
Parties: In the Matter of H. D., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness.
Judges: Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 415
Pages: 1153–1154

Head Matter:
In the Matter of H. D., a Person Alleged to have a Mental Illness.
STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
H. D., Appellant.
A165281
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Submitted February 2, 2018.
April 25, 2018
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, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Appellant appeals an order committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C), and an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms under ORS 426.130 (1)(a)(D). In her third assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to fully advise her of her rights in accordance with the requirements of ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise her that the possible results of the proceeding included voluntary treatment or conditional release. See ORS 426.130(1), (2) (setting out possible results of proceeding). The state has conceded 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 plainly erred, and the error requires reversal. For the reasons stated in those cases, we exercise our discretion to correct the error and, accordingly, reverse the orders. Our disposition of appellant's third assignment of error obviates the need to address her first two assignments of error.
Reversed.
As in State v. R. C. S. , 291 Or. App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018), also decided this date, we reverse both the commitment order and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing and possessing firearms. See State v. Z. A. B. , 266 Or. App. 708, 709, 338 P.3d 802 (2014) (" 'Finding that an individual "is a person with mental illness" is a condition precedent to the issuance of an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of a firearm, ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D).' " (Quoting State v. W. B. , 264 Or. App. 777, 778, 333 P.3d 1099 (2014).) ); see also State v. S. F. , 291 Or. App. 261, 267 n. 1, - P.3d - (2018) (noting subsequent enactment of statutory scheme for extreme risk protection orders concerning deadly weapons, including firearms, now codified as ORS 166.525 to 166.543 ).