State v. B.A.F.

(1) “A trial court is required to advise a person alleged to have a mental illness of all the possible results of the proceeding and failure to do so is plain error. State v. B.A.F., 414 P3d 486 (Or App 2022) (citing State v. M.M., 288 Or App 111, 115-16 (2017)) (emphasis in original) (2) “An appeal from a civil commitment order does not become moot after the expiration of the commitment period.” State v. Van Tassel, 5 Or App 376, 385 (1971)

Appellant appealed a judgment committing him to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Division. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court plainly erred in failing to advise him of possible outcomes of the proceedings per ORS 426.100(1) because it did not inform him of the potential for conditional release or voluntary treatment. The State disagreed that the trial court erred. “A trial court is required to advise a person alleged to have a mental illness of all the possible results of the proceeding and failure to do so is plain error. State v. B.A.F., 414 P3d 486 (Or App 2022) (citing State v. M.M., 288 Or App 111, 115-16 (2017)) (emphasis in original). Because the appellant was not advised of all possible outcomes of the commitment proceedings as required by ORS 426.100(1), the Court held that the trial court committed plain error and exercised its discretion to correct the error.

Alternatively, the State argued that appellant’s case was moot because the 180-day commitment had passed. “An appeal from a civil commitment order does not become moot after the expiration of the commitment period.” State v. Van Tassel, 5 Or App 376, 385 (1971). The Court refused to overrule Van Tassel, finding the social stigma associated with involuntary commitment as a result of mental illness to be significant. Reversed.