IN RE: D. A. R. (2017)

Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. See ORS 426.130. In his second assignment of error, he contends that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him of the possible results of the proceeding in accordance with ORS 426.100(1). Specifically, appellant contends that the trial court plainly erred when it did not advise him that those possible results included vol-untary treatment or conditional release. Under our recent decisions in State v. M. M., 288 Or App 111, 405 P3d 192 (2017), and State v. M. S. R., 288 Or App 156, 403 P3d 809 (2017), appellant is correct that the trial court plainly erred. Further, for the reasons stated in those cases, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Our disposition of the second assignment of error obviates the need to address appellant's remaining assignment of error.

Reversed.

PER CURIAM