State v. T. C.

338 Or. App. 252

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: A184747
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

252 February 26, 2025 No. 158

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In the Matter of T. C., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. T. C., Appellant. Marion County Circuit Court 24CC00746; A184747

Drew P. Taylor, Judge pro tempore. Submitted January 10, 2025. Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant. Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 252 (2025) 253

EGAN, J. Appellant challenges an order recommitting him to the Oregon Health Authority for an additional period of up to 180 days. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 (1991). The brief does not include a Section B. See ORAP 5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1 In February 2024, appellant was committed to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 90 days. In May 2024, the state sought to recommit appellant for an additional period of time. The trial court held a hearing as required by ORS 426.307, at which it heard testimony from the psychiatric nurse practitioner providing care for appellant. At the end of the hearing, the court determined that appellant continued to suffer from a mental disorder that made him dangerous to others and the court recommitted appellant for an addi- tional period of up to 180 days. Having reviewed the record, including the trial court file, the transcript of the recommit- ment hearing, and the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably meritorious issues. Affirmed.

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v. Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).