Legal Opinion

State v. A. T. D. (In re A. T. D.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 13, 2018No. A165092Published

1Per curiam

*408*800Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) and an order prohibiting her from purchasing or possessing firearms under ORS 426.130(1)(a)(D). Appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of all the "possible results of the proceedings" as required by ORS 426.100(1)(c). The state concedes the error, and we agree that the court's failure to provide appellant with the information that ORS 426.100(1) requires constitutes plain error. See, e.g.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. M. L. R.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  2. State v. R. C. S. (In re R. C. S.)Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  3. State v. Z. A. B.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  4. State v. S.F. (In re S.F.)Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  5. State v. W. B.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API