State v. F. L. O. (In re F. L. O.)

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. F. L. O. (In re F. L. O.)

432 P.3d 395, 295 Or. App. 568

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 3, 2019

DocketA166907

StatusPublished

This text of 432 P.3d 395 (State v. F. L. O. (In re F. L. O.)) 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. F. L. O. (In re F. L. O.), 432 P.3d 395, 295 Or. App. 568 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*569Appellant seeks reversal of an order of commitment to the Oregon Department of Human Services for a period not to exceed one year. ORS 427.290. The trial court determined that appellant, because of an intellectual disability, was a danger to self and others. Appellant argues, in a single assignment of error, that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence of an intellectual disability under ORS 427.005(10), which defines "intellectual disability" as "significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, defined as intelligence quotients under 70 as measured by a qualified professional and existing concurrently with significant impairment in adaptive behavior, that is manifested before the individual is 18 years of age." The state concedes that, because the record lacks evidence of the second part of the intellectual disability definition relating to adaptive behavior, the trial court erred in ordering commitment. We agree and accept the state's concession. We therefore reverse the trial court's order of commitment.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

*569Appellant seeks reversal of an order of commitment to the Oregon Department of Human Services for a period not to exceed one year. ORS 427.290. The trial court determined that appellant, because of an intellectual disability, was a danger to self and others. Appellant argues, in a single assignment of error, that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence of an intellectual disability under ORS 427.005(10), which defines "intellectual disability" as "significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, defined as intelligence quotients under 70 as measured by a qualified professional and existing concurrently with significant impairment in adaptive behavior, that is manifested before the individual is 18 years of age." The state concedes that, because the record lacks evidence of the second part of the intellectual disability definition relating to adaptive behavior, the trial court erred in ordering commitment. We agree and accept the state's concession. We therefore reverse the trial court's order of commitment.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 P.3d 395, 295 Or. App. 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-f-l-o-in-re-f-l-o-orctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack