State v. L. J. L.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. L. J. L.

342 P.3d 141, 268 Or. App. 368

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 31, 2014

Docket301306342; A154010

StatusPublished

This text of 342 P.3d 141 (State v. L. J. L.) 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. L. J. L., 342 P.3d 141, 268 Or. App. 368 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant “is suffering from a mental disorder, is a danger to himself and others, will not benefit from voluntary commitment and although is able to provide for his basic personal needs, outside the institutional setting is not now receiving such care as is necessary for his health or safety.” Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling (1) that appellant was a danger to himself or others and (2) that he “was not receiving necessary care without state intervention.” The state concedes both errors — that is, it agrees with appellant that the evidence is insufficient to support commitment based on danger to self or others and that “the trial court erred by, having found appellant able to meet his basic needs, nonetheless ordering him committed based on inability to meet basic needs.” We agree and accept the state’s concessions. See State v. K. K. G., 267 Or App 319, 320-21, 340 P3d 735 (2014) (holding that the trial court erred in ordering appellant’s involuntary commitment based on appellant “not receiving [such] care for his basic needs as is necessary for health and safety even though the trial court found him able to provide for his basic needs”). Accordingly, we reverse.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him for a period not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant “is suffering from a mental disorder, is a danger to himself and others, will not benefit from voluntary commitment and although is able to provide for his basic personal needs, outside the institutional setting is not now receiving such care as is necessary for his health or safety.” Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling (1) that appellant was a danger to himself or others and (2) that he “was not receiving necessary care without state intervention.” The state concedes both errors — that is, it agrees with appellant that the evidence is insufficient to support commitment based on danger to self or others and that “the trial court erred by, having found appellant able to meet his basic needs, nonetheless ordering him committed based on inability to meet basic needs.” We agree and accept the state’s concessions. See State v. K. K. G., 267 Or App 319, 320-21, 340 P3d 735 (2014) (holding that the trial court erred in ordering appellant’s involuntary commitment based on appellant “not receiving [such] care for his basic needs as is necessary for health and safety even though the trial court found him able to provide for his basic needs”). Accordingly, we reverse.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 P.3d 141, 268 Or. App. 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-l-j-l-orctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack