State v. Dezort

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Dezort

145 P.3d 336, 208 Or. App. 751, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1610

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 18, 2006

Docket0407-68402; A125785

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 145 P.3d 336 (State v. Dezort) 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. Dezort, 145 P.3d 336, 208 Or. App. 751, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1610 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this mental commitment case, appellant advances two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case when he was not released after the expiration of a five-day initial hold; and (2) in any event, the trial court erred in finding that, because of a mental illness, appellant is a danger to himself and unable to provide for his own basic personal needs. The state concedes the first assignment and contends that, as a result, we need not address the second.

It is undisputed that a physician’s hold was placed on appellant on July 20, 2004, and forwarded to a precommitment investigator. The case was not submitted to a hearing within the next five days. A physician, however, placed appellant on a second hold on July 26, 2004. ORS 426.232(2) provides that a physician may approve a person for emergency care or treatment at a nonhospital facility, provided that the physician immediately notifies certain specified local mental health personnel. The statute then provides that, “[hjowever, under no circumstances may the person be held for longer than five judicial days” without a hearing, subject to exceptions not pertinent to this case. Id.

We agree with appellant and the state that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case when appellant was not released after the expiration of five days on the initial hold. State v. Bradsteen, 196 Or App 634, 106 P3d 647 (2004). In light of that decision, we need not address appellant’s other assignment of error.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this mental commitment case, appellant advances two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case when he was not released after the expiration of a five-day initial hold; and (2) in any event, the trial court erred in finding that, because of a mental illness, appellant is a danger to himself and unable to provide for his own basic personal needs. The state concedes the first assignment and contends that, as a result, we need not address the second.

It is undisputed that a physician’s hold was placed on appellant on July 20, 2004, and forwarded to a precommitment investigator. The case was not submitted to a hearing within the next five days. A physician, however, placed appellant on a second hold on July 26, 2004. ORS 426.232(2) provides that a physician may approve a person for emergency care or treatment at a nonhospital facility, provided that the physician immediately notifies certain specified local mental health personnel. The statute then provides that, “[hjowever, under no circumstances may the person be held for longer than five judicial days” without a hearing, subject to exceptions not pertinent to this case. Id.

We agree with appellant and the state that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case when appellant was not released after the expiration of five days on the initial hold. State v. Bradsteen, 196 Or App 634, 106 P3d 647 (2004). In light of that decision, we need not address appellant’s other assignment of error.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 P.3d 336, 208 Or. App. 751, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dezort-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack