IN RE: T. J. G. (2020)

Appellant appeals a judgment committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period not to exceed 180 days, based upon a finding that he has a mental illness, and an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing a firearm. The state concedes error and we agree and reverse the judgment and the order.

Appellant was detained on a series of 12-hour “transport holds” under ORS 426.231, from August 16, 2018, until August 25, when he was detained pursuant to a “physician's hospital hold” under ORS 426.232. Appellant's civil commitment hearing was held on August 31, 2018, and he was committed based on the court's finding that he has a mental illness and is a danger to himself. The court then entered an order prohibiting him from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

On appeal, appellant contends that the circuit court should have dismissed the proceeding, because he was not released after being held for more than twelve hours on a transport hold or, alternatively, because he had been held for more than five judicial days without a hearing. The state concedes that the commitment should be dismissed because appellant was held for more than five judicial days without a hearing, and we accept the concession. As we recently reiterated in State v. L.O.W., 292 Or. App. 376, 381, 424 P.3d 789 (2018), a court lacks authority to hold a mental commitment hearing when a person has been involuntarily hospitalized for longer than five judicial days. See also ORS 426.234(4) (requiring courts to immediately commence commitment proceedings upon receiving notice that a person is being held in a physician hold, and providing that, except in circumstances not present in this case, “a person shall not be held under ORS 426.232 * * * for more than five judicial days without a hearing being held under ORS 426.070 to 426.130”); ORS 426.237(4)(b) (requiring courts to immediately commence commitment proceedings when mental health personnel recommend doing so in an investigation report during a physician hold, and providing that “[i]n no case shall the person be held longer than five judicial days without a hearing under this subsection.”). Because appellant was held for longer than five judicial days without a hearing, the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the commitment proceeding. We therefore reverse the judgment of commitment and the order prohibiting the possession of firearms.

Reversed.

PER CURIAM