State v. L. K. F. -M. ( 2024 )

32 July 24, 2024 No. 517
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of L. K. F.-M.,
a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
L. K. F.-M.,
Appellant.
Linn County Circuit Court
23CC06952; A183082
Michael B. Wynhausen, Judge.
Submitted June 14, 2024.
Joseph R. DeBin 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 Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
EGAN, J.
Reversed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 334 Or App 32 (2024) 33
EGAN, J.
Appellant appeals from a judgment committing
her to the Oregon Health Authority and from an order pro-
hibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. In her first
assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court
plainly erred by failing to dismiss the case when appel-
lant was not provided a hearing within five days of being
detained. The state concedes the error. We agree with and
accept that concession. We therefore reverse the judgment.1
Appellant was detained on a director’s hold on
November 14, 2023, but the civil commitment hearing did
not occur until December 6, 2023, which was more than
five judicial days later. As we held in State v. L. O. W., 292
Or App 376, 381, 424 P3d 789 (2018), a court lacks authority
to hold a civil 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 entitled to dismissal. We conclude that the error
is apparent on the face of the record and exercise our dis-
cretion 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 its gravity). We
therefore reverse the judgment and order.
Reversed.
1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-
judge panel. Because we reverse based on the first assignment of error, we do not
address appellant’s second assignment of error.