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: S. E. R., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. State of Oregon, Respondent, v. S. E. R., Appellant.
Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days, based on a finding that she suffers from a mental disorder and is dangerous to herself. ORS 426.130. Appellant was detained and hospitalized based on a physician's hold on November 24, 2019. On November 28, 2019, the court, on its own motion, ordered the matter continued until December 4, 2019.
At the hearing, appellant did not raise any issue concerning the postponement. She argues on appeal, however, that the court plainly erred in postponing the hearing on its own motion and not holding a hearing within five days of her detention. The state concedes the error, and we agree. A court is required to hold a hearing such as this within five judicial days of the appellant's detention. State v. L. O. W., 292 Or. App. 376, 381, 424 P.3d 789 (2018) (stating same). A court may postpone such a hearing for an additional five days to allow a party to prepare for a hearing “[i]f requested,” based on a finding of “good cause.” ORS 426.095(2)(c). As we explained in State v. J. O. B., 296 Or. App. 153, 154, 436 P.3d 91 (2019), ORS 426.095(2)(c) does not authorize a court to postpone a hearing on its own motion. We conclude that the error is plain, and we exercise discretion to correct the error. See State v. R. W. S., 292 Or. App. 405, 406, 419 P.3d 804 (2018) (plain error merits correction because holding appellant two judicial days longer than permissible amounts to “grave error”).
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: A172950
Decided: May 06, 2020
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)