State v. P. C. G. C. ( 2021 )

118
Submitted October 1, reversed December 1, 2021
In the Matter of P. C. G. C.,
a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
P. C. G. C.,
Appellant.
Tillamook County Circuit Court
21CC00472; A175485
500 P3d 766
Jonathan R. Hill, Judge.
Margaret Huntington and O’Connor Weber LLC 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 Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reversed.
Cite as 316 Or App 118 (2021) 119
PER CURIAM
Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to
the Mental Health Division for a period up to 180 days and
imposing firearms restrictions, based on appellant being a
“person with mental illness,” ORS 426.130(1)(a)(C). As rele-
vant here, a “person with mental illness” includes “a person
who, because of a mental disorder,” is “[d]angerous to self
or others” or is “[u]nable to provide for basic personal needs
that are necessary to avoid serious physical harm in the
near future, and is not receiving such care as is necessary
to avoid such harm.” ORS 426.005(1)(f).
Appellant does not dispute that he has a mental
disorder, specifically schizophrenia. However, in his first
assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court
erred in committing him based on his being a danger to self
or others, and, in his third assignment of error, appellant
contends that the trial court erred in finding him unable to
provide for his basic needs.1
The judgment is unclear regarding the basis for
commitment. Pointing to the firearms restriction contained
in the judgment—which states that appellant “is reasonably
likely to constitute a danger to self or others”—appellant
contends that he was committed based on danger to self
or others. The state disagrees, arguing that the judgment
is silent as to the basis for commitment, that the firearms
restrictions is a separate issue, and that the trial court’s
oral ruling makes clear that the commitment itself was
based solely on inability to provide for basic needs.
We need not resolve the parties’ procedural dis-
agreement. To the extent that the judgment reflects a com-
mitment based on danger to self or others, the state concedes
that such a basis for commitment would be improper—
particularly given that the trial court expressly declined to
make the necessary findings on this record—and we agree.
As for appellant being unable to provide for basic needs, the
1
Appellant’s second assignment of error challenges the firearms restrictions
imposed in the commitment judgment. Given our disposition of the first and third
assignments of error, we need not separately address the second assignment of
error.
120 State v. P. C. G. C.
state concedes, and we agree, that the evidence was legally
insufficient to support commitment on that basis.
Reversed.