Legal Opinion

State v. Thierman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 16, 1999No. 9808-67205; CA A103333PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Appellant appeals a final order committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division and an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing a firearm. We reverse and remand for new trial.

Appellant first contends that the commitment order should be reversed because the trial court failed to advise him of his rights as required by ORS 426.100, including, in particular, the right to subpoena witnesses and the right to counsel. The state concedes that the trial court failed to advise appellant of those rights as required by statute and that the matter should be reversed and remanded…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. 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