State v. B.K.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Commitment
  • Date Filed: 01-16-2019
  • Case #: A167703
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & James, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“Whether the trial court committed plain error in failing to advise appellant of all the possible results of the proceedings depends on whether the error was one of law, whether the error was ‘apparent’ so that the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and whether the error appears on the record so that we ‘need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.’” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990).

Appellant appealed from an order by the trial court which committed him for a “period not to exceed 180 days.” Appellant assigned error to the trial court’s failure to advise him that a possible result of the proceeding could have been a voluntary treatment or conditional release. On appeal, Appellant argued that although the State advised him of some of his rights at the hearing prior to the proceeding, it failed to advise him of all his rights; including the possibility of voluntary treatment or conditional release. In response, the State argued that at the hearing that was held prior to the proceeding, Appellant was advised of all his rights and that on top of that advisement, the State also made Appellant aware of the possibility of confinement not to exceed 180 days. “Whether the trial court committed plain error in failing to advise appellant of all the possible results of the proceedings depends on whether the error was one of law, whether the error was ‘apparent’ so that the legal point is obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and whether the error appears on the record so that we ‘need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.’” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990). The Court held that based on the record, the evidence provided by Appellant did not show an “irrefutable” failure by the trial court to advise Appellant of all the possible outcomes following the proceeding.

Affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top