Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: J. O. B., a Person Alleged to Have Mental Illness. State of Oregon, Respondent, v. J. O. B., Appellant.
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing appellant to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days and an order prohibiting appellant from purchasing or possessing a firearm based upon a finding that appellant has a mental illness. ORS 426.130. Appellant’s commitment hearing was postponed by the trial court “due to Court availability”—on the court’s own motion—to a date that was more than five judicial days after appellant was taken into custody for involuntary treatment. Appellant moved to dismiss the civil commitment proceeding for failure to hold the hearing within five judicial days. See, e.g., State v. E. R., 283 Or. App. 282, 283, 387 P.3d 497 (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).
The court denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that the court’s unavailability was good cause for postponing the hearing. However, although ORS 426.095(2)(c) permits a “good cause” postponement of a commitment hearing past the five-judicial-day deadline, the court is not statutorily permitted to request postponement. See ORS 426.095 (2)(c)(A) - (C) (person alleged to have mental illness, that person’s legal counsel or guardian, or the person representing the state are allowed to request a postponement for good cause). The state concedes that the court erred in failing to dismiss appellant’s case for that reason, and we accept the state’s concession. We therefore reverse the judgment of commitment and the order prohibiting appellant from purchasing or possessing a firearm. See State v. L. O. W., 292 Or. App. 376, 424 P.3d 789 (2018) (reversing order of commitment when the appellant was involuntarily hospitalized for more than five days without a hearing); State v. R. C. S., 291 Or. App. 489, 490, 415 P.3d 1164 (2018) (reversing both the order of commitment and the order prohibiting the appellant from purchasing and possessing firearms).
Reversed.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: A168501
Decided: February 13, 2019
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)