State v. A. M. H.

343 Or. App. 710

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: A186387
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

710 October 1, 2025 No. 855

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 A. M. H., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. A. M. H., Appellant. Umatilla County Circuit Court 24CC07159; A186387

Eva J. Temple, Judge. Submitted August 8, 2025. Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Reversed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 343 Or App 710 (2025) 711

LAGESEN, C. J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the pur- chase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused her to be a danger to self and others and that she was unable to provide for her basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A)-(B). We reverse.1 Appellant raises two assignments of error. Because we reverse on appellant’s second assignment of error, we do not reach her first assignment. In her second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it held the commitment hearing after she had been held involuntarily for more than five judicial days. The court was required to dismiss the commitment action under those circumstances. State v. L. O. W., 292 Or App 376, 380-81, 424 P3d 789 (2018). The state concedes the error. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession. Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the plain error. State v. T. C., 327 Or App 558, 571, 536 P3d 591 (2023), rev den, 371 Or 825 (2024). Reversed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel.