State v. R. W. S. (In re R. W. S.)

419 P.3d 804, 292 Or. App. 405
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJune 13, 2018
DocketA163906
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 419 P.3d 804 (State v. R. W. S. (In re R. W. S.)) 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. R. W. S. (In re R. W. S.), 419 P.3d 804, 292 Or. App. 405 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*406*805Appellant's commitment hearing was held eleven days after he was taken into custody for involuntary treatment, and he seeks reversal of an order committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days, ORS 426.130. He argues, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case because the commitment hearing was not held within five judicial days after he was taken into custody for involuntary treatment. See State v. J. N. , 279 Or. App. 607, 377 P.3d 695 (2016) (citing ORS 426.232(2), ORS 426.233(1), and ORS 426.095(2)(a), in reversing a commitment order because the hearing was held more than five days after the appellant was taken involuntarily into custody for mental health treatment); State v. E. R. , 283 Or. App. 282, 283, 387 P.3d 497 (2016) (same).1 Although appellant did not preserve his claim of error, he requests that we review it as plain error. ORAP 5.45(1). The state concedes that the failure to dismiss is one of law apparent on the face of the record, and we accept the concession. We also exercise our discretion to correct the plain error because holding appellant two judicial days longer than what was permissible was a grave error. Consequently, we reverse the commitment order.

Reversed.

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

Related

State v. D. T.
486 P.3d 864 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2021)
State v. B. K. B.
486 P.3d 65 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2021)
State v. S. E. R.
466 P.3d 98 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2020)
State v. L.O.W. (In re L.O.W.)
424 P.3d 789 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
419 P.3d 804, 292 Or. App. 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-r-w-s-in-re-r-w-s-orctapp-2018.