Case Name: In the Matter of J. R. T., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. J. R. T., Appellant.
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2018-08-15
Citations: 423 P.3d 815
Docket Number: A163772
Parties: In the Matter of J. R. T., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
Judges: Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 423
Pages: 815–815

Head Matter:
In the Matter of J. R. T., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
J. R. T., Appellant.
A163772
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Submitted June 1, 2018.
August 15, 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 Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this appeal, appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. He contends, in an unpreserved assignment of error, that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to inform him, as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c), of some of the possible results of the hearing. The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to fully comply with ORS 426.100(1) constitutes plain error. See State v. Ritzman , 192 Or. App. 296, 298-99, 84 P.3d 1129 (2004) (failure to advise a person directly regarding the rights listed in ORS 426.100(1) or conduct an examination on the record to determine whether a valid waiver of the right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily made is plain error). We further conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons stated in State v. M. L. R. , 256 Or. App. 566, 570-72, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) (nature of the civil commitment proceedings, the gravity of the violation, the ends of justice, and the lack of harmless error).
Reversed.
Our disposition obviates the need to address appellant's other assignment of error.