IN RE: N. L. (2020)

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing him to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days, ORS 426.130. In his first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the case because he was involuntarily detained on a mental health hold for longer than five judicial days with-out a hearing. The state concedes that the court so erred under the circumstances presented. Those circumstances are somewhat convoluted, and a discussion of them would be of no benefit to the bench, bar, or public. Suffice it to say that we agree with and accept the state’s concession that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss appellant’s case. See State v. L. O. W., 292 Or. App. 376, 380, 424 P.3d 789 (2018) (statutory scheme “suggests that the legislature intended the five-judicial-day rule to be not merely an obligation on physicians and hospitals to release people after a designated period of time, but a procedural prerequisite to lawful commitment proceedings”); State v. J. N., 279 Or. App. 607, 608, 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). Consequently, we reverse the commitment order. That disposition obviates the need to address appellant’s second assignment of error, in which he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for commitment.

Reversed.

PER CURIAM