Legal Opinion

State v. Tardanico

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 28, 1994No. 9402-95325; CA A83206PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Per curiam

In this mental commitment case, the trial court failed to advise appellant of her rights under ORS 426.100. As we held in State v. May, 131 Or App 570, 888 P2d 14 (1994), advisement of those rights is mandatory, and a failure to advise or to determine that there has been a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to be advised requires reversal.

The state contends that the error was not preserved in the trial court. We conclude that the error is apparent on the face of the record, ORAP 5.45(2), and that it is an egregious one. We exercise our discretion to review the error. Ailes v. Portland…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. MayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. RitzmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  2. State v. S. J. F.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. State v. TardanicoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  4. State v. M. T.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. State v. MTCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API