Advice of court
- appointment of legal counsel
- costs
- representation of state’s interest
Source:
Section 426.100 — Advice of court; appointment of legal counsel; costs; representation of state’s interest, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors426.html.
Notes of Decisions
The due process clause of the U.S. Const., Am. XIV, entitles an allegedly mentally ill person to representation by counsel, and provides that he, or one acting in his behalf, must be fully advised of his right to counsel, and this right be accorded unless intelligently and understandingly waived. State v. Collman, 9 Or App 476, 497 P2d 1233 (1972)
Where attorney in mental commitment hearing failed to make motion for continuance, continuance would not be considered for first time on appeal. State v. Mills, 36 Or App 727, 585 P2d 1143 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Granting of continuances upon showing of good cause is discretionary rather than mandatory. State v. Adair, 42 Or App 675, 601 P2d 830 (1979)
Where conduct of defendant during hearing on involuntary commitment order demonstrated defendant was not capable of defending himself adequately, trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow him to represent himself. State v. Pieretti, 110 Or App 379, 823 P2d 426 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Stipulation by counsel that person was dangerous and should be committed did not relieve court of responsibility for explaining nature of hearing and rights to person. State v. Allison, 129 Or App 47, 877 P2d 660 (1994)
Where allegedly mentally ill person waives advice of rights, waiver is ineffective unless court conducts examination on record to verify that waiver is knowing and voluntary. State v. May, 131 Or App 570, 888 P2d 14 (1994); State v. Burge, 167 Or App 312, 1 P3d 490 (2000)
Advice regarding “nature of proceedings” encompasses description only of basic character of proceedings, not legal and evidentiary standards to be employed. State v. Buffum, 166 Or App 552, 999 P2d 541 (2000)
Where court has previously determined ability of person to afford counsel, court may appropriately limit advice regarding person’s right to appointed or retained counsel. State v. Cach, 172 Or App 745, 19 P3d 992 (2001), Sup Ct review denied
Court is not required to inform person of right to self-representation. State v. Cach, 172 Or App 745, 19 P3d 992 (2001), Sup Ct review denied
Right to suitable counsel does not provide basis for collateral challenge to commitment order based on inadequate assistance of counsel. State v. Linder, 177 Or App 715, 33 P3d 1023 (2001)
Trial court at civil commitment proceeding must either advise mentally ill person directly of mentally ill person’s rights or conduct examination on record to determine whether right to be advised has been knowingly and voluntarily waived. State v. Ritzman, 192 Or App 296, 84 P3d 1129 (2004)
Appellate court may review trial court’s failure to advise mentally ill person of specified proceedings and rights for plain error. State v. S.J.F., 247 Or App 321, 269 P3d 83 (2011)
Because it is not plain that, under ORS 426.301 to 426.307, voluntary treatment and conditional release are possible outcomes of recommitment proceedings, it was not plain error for trial court to exclude those outcomes when advising person with mental illness of possible results of recommitment hearings as required by this section. State v. H.H.J. 296 Or App 199, 436 P3d 75 (2019)
Law Review Citations
11 WLJ 321 (1975)
Up to date