IN RE: R. R. (2020)

Appellant appeals an order committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days. He asserts that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to advise him of all of his rights as required by ORS 426.100(1) and, in particular, failed to adequately explain all of the possible results of the proceeding. See ORS 426.100(1)(c) (court shall advise allegedly mentally ill person of the possible results of the proceedings). The state concedes that the court’s failure constitutes plain error. We agree and accept the state’s concession. We exercise our discretion to correct the error for the reasons expressed in State v. M. L. R., 256 Or. App. 566, 570-72, 303 P.3d 954 (2013) (plain error review of violations of ORS 426.100(1) is justified by the nature of civil commitment proceedings, the relative interests of the parties, the gravity of the violation, and the ends of justice).

Reversed.

PER CURIAM