State v. C. M. W. ( 2023 )

564
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted February 9, affirmed March 8, 2023
In the Matter of C. M. W.,
a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
C. M. W.,
Appellant.
Clackamas County Circuit Court
21CC07271; A177944
Cody M. Weston, Judge.
Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
KAMINS, J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 324 Or App 564 (2023) 565
KAMINS, J.
Appellant challenges an order committing her to
the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for 180 days.
See ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C) (authorizing the commitment of a
“person with mental illness”). On appeal, she argues that
the evidence at the hearing does not support the finding
that her mental illness renders her dangerous to herself.
See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A) (a person has a “mental illness”
if they are dangerous to self or others because of a men-
tal disorder). Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s disposition, the record contains evidence to support
the trial court’s factual findings and the ultimate conclu-
sion that appellant presents a danger to herself. See State v.
M. J. F., 306 Or App 544, 545, 473 P3d 1141 (2020) (provid-
ing standard of review). Specifically, evidence indicated that
members of the Clackamas County Crisis mobile response
team had to turn off all four burners on appellant’s stove,
which had caused material on top of the stove to smoke and
blackened a wall behind the stove. Additionally, appellant
pushed flammable materials against heaters that were
turned to their highest setting, placed her hand in boiling
water, and recently attempted suicide. That evidence, com-
bined with evidence of appellant’s lack of insight into the
dangerousness of those behaviors, is sufficient to permit a
rational factfinder to conclude that it is highly probable that
appellant presents a nonspeculative risk of harm to herself.
Id. at 546.
Affirmed.