State v. B. C. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      258
    Submitted May 7; reversed June 9; on respondent’s petition for reconsideration
    filed June 18 and appellant’s response to petition for reconsideration filed June
    18, petition for reconsideration denied by opinion August 11, 2021
    See 
    313 Or App 791
    , ___ P3d ___ (2021)
    In the Matter of B. C.,
    a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
    STATE OF OREGON,
    Respondent,
    v.
    B. C.,
    Appellant.
    Yamhill County Circuit Court
    20CC05538; A174625
    487 P3d 879
    Jennifer K. Chapman, Judge.
    Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed
    the brief for appellant.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
    Solicitor General, and Julia Glick, Assistant Attorney
    General, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
    Powers, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
    Reversed.
    Cite as 
    312 Or App 258
     (2021)                              259
    PER CURIAM
    Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to
    the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period of
    time not to exceed 180 days and an order prohibiting him
    from purchasing or possessing firearms, based on a finding
    that he has a mental illness. ORS 426.130. He asserts that
    the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case because
    he had been held for more than five judicial days prior to the
    hearing. The state concedes the error. We accept the state’s
    concession.
    Appellant was detained on a director’s hold on
    September 9, 2020, and the hearing in this case occurred
    on September 18, 2020, seven judicial days after appellant’s
    detention commenced. As we held in State v. L. O. W., 
    292 Or App 376
    , 381, 424 P3d 789 (2018), and numerous cases
    before and since, a court lacks authority to hold a mental
    commitment hearing when a person has been involuntarily
    hospitalized for longer than five judicial days, and a person
    held longer than five judicial days without a hearing is enti-
    tled to dismissal. We conclude that the error is apparent on
    the face of the record and exercise our discretion to correct it
    in light of the gravity of the error. See State v. J. S., 
    293 Or App 117
    , 423 P3d 168 (2018) (exercising discretion to correct
    similar error in light of gravity of error).
    Reversed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A174625

Filed Date: 6/9/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/10/2024