State v. B. F.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. B. F.

477 P.3d 470, 307 Or. App. 837

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 9, 2020

DocketA174078

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 477 P.3d 470 (State v. B. F.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. B. F., 477 P.3d 470, 307 Or. App. 837 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted November 9, reversed December 9, 2020

In the Matter of B. F., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. B. F., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 20CC02749; A174078 477 P3d 470

Monica M. Herranz, Judge pro tempore. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Weston Koyama, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 838 State v. B. F.

PER CURIAM The trial court committed appellant to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days based on a determination that he was a danger to oth- ers, and entered an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). Appellant con- tends that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s conclusion that he is a danger to others. The state concedes that the record is legally insuf- ficient in that regard and that the judgment of commitment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the judgment of commitment and the firearms order. See State v. R. C. S., 291 Or App 489, 490, 415 P3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both the order of commitment and the order prohibiting the appellant from purchasing or possess- ing firearms). Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Submitted November 9, reversed December 9, 2020

In the Matter of B. F., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. B. F., Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 20CC02749; A174078 477 P3d 470

Monica M. Herranz, Judge pro tempore. Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Weston Koyama, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed. 838 State v. B. F.

PER CURIAM The trial court committed appellant to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days based on a determination that he was a danger to oth- ers, and entered an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing firearms. ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). Appellant con- tends that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s conclusion that he is a danger to others. The state concedes that the record is legally insuf- ficient in that regard and that the judgment of commitment should be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the judgment of commitment and the firearms order. See State v. R. C. S., 291 Or App 489, 490, 415 P3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both the order of commitment and the order prohibiting the appellant from purchasing or possess- ing firearms). Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 P.3d 470, 307 Or. App. 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-b-f-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack