State v. N. L. ( 2020 )

369
Submitted January 3, reversed February 20, 2020
In the Matter of N. L.,
a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
N. L.,
Appellant.
Douglas County Circuit Court
19CC02815; A171434
457 P3d 1114
Jason R Thomas, Judge pro tempore.
Lindsey Burrows filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
Mooney, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reversed.
370 State v. N. L.
PER CURIAM
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing
him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed
180 days, ORS 426.130. In his first assignment of error, he
argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss the case because he was involuntarily detained on
a mental health hold for longer than five judicial days with-
out a hearing. The state concedes that the court so erred
under the circumstances presented. Those circumstances
are somewhat convoluted, and a discussion of them would
be of no benefit to the bench, bar, or public. Suffice it to say
that we agree with and accept the state’s concession that
the trial court erred in failing to dismiss appellant’s case.
See State v. L. O. W., 292 Or App 376, 380, 424 P3d 789
(2018) (statutory scheme “suggests that the legislature
intended the five-judicial-day rule to be not merely an obli-
gation on physicians and hospitals to release people after
a designated period of time, but a procedural prerequisite
to lawful commitment proceedings”); State v. J. N., 279 Or
App 607, 608, 377 P3d 695 (2016) (citing ORS 426.232(2),
ORS 426.233(1), and ORS 426.095(2)(a), in reversing a com-
mitment order because the hearing was held more than five
days after the appellant was taken involuntarily into cus-
tody for mental health treatment). Consequently, we reverse
the commitment order. That disposition obviates the need to
address appellant’s second assignment of error, in which he
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for commitment.
Reversed.