With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her for a period not to exceed 180 days pursuant to ORS 426.130. Appellant argues, among other contentions, that the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of the right to subpoena witnesses under ORS 426.100(1)(d). See State v. M. L. R., 256 Or App 566, 570-71, 303 P3d 954 (2013) (<HOLDING>). The state concedes that the trial court erred

A: holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error
B: holding that the failure to provide a person with all of the information required by ors 4261001 constitutes an egregious error that justifies plain error review
C: holding that a district courts failure to make the necessary findings related to a restitution order constitutes plain error
D: holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard
B.