State v. P. G.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. P. G.

200 P.3d 614, 225 Or. App. 211, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 18

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 7, 2009

DocketM070161; A137803

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 200 P.3d 614 (State v. P. G.) 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. P. G., 200 P.3d 614, 225 Or. App. 211, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 18 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant in this mental commitment case appeals a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for treatment for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. In the trial court, appellant moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the state had failed to comply with ORS 426.232(2), which prohibits keeping a person on an involuntary hold for longer than five judicial days. The trial court denied appellant’s motion, found that appellant suffers from a mental disorder and is a danger to himself and others, and entered an order of commitment. On appeal, the state concedes that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss due to the violation of ORS 426.232(2). We accept the state’s concession as well founded. See generally State v. Bradsteen, 196 Or App 634, 106 P3d 647 (2004).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant in this mental commitment case appeals a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for treatment for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. In the trial court, appellant moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the state had failed to comply with ORS 426.232(2), which prohibits keeping a person on an involuntary hold for longer than five judicial days. The trial court denied appellant’s motion, found that appellant suffers from a mental disorder and is a danger to himself and others, and entered an order of commitment. On appeal, the state concedes that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss due to the violation of ORS 426.232(2). We accept the state’s concession as well founded. See generally State v. Bradsteen, 196 Or App 634, 106 P3d 647 (2004).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 P.3d 614, 225 Or. App. 211, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-p-g-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack