State v. H. D.

                                      200

                Submitted August 4, reversed September 20, 2023


                     In the Matter of H. D.,
            a Person Alleged to Have Mental Illness.
                     STATE OF OREGON,
                          Respondent,
                               v.
                             H. D.,
                           Appellant.
                Deschutes County Circuit Court
                      22CC07645; A180733
                                  

    Appellant appeals from a judgment committing her to the Addiction and
Mental Health Division of the Oregon Health Authority for a period of 180 days
based on a finding that she had a mental illness. She asserts that the trial court
plainly erred in committing her based on her violation of a two-year “conditional
release” agreement that did not conform to the statutory provisions for conditional release found in ORS chapter 426. The state concedes that the trial court
plainly erred and that the error merits correction. Held: The two-year “conditional release” agreement in this case did not comport with the requirements
of ORS chapter 426. Because the trial court plainly erred, the Court of Appeals
exercised its discretion to correct the error in light of its gravity.

    Reversed.



    Owyhee Weikel-Magden, Judge pro tempore.
    Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
    ORTEGA, P. J.
    Reversed.
Cite as 

 (2023)                             201

        ORTEGA, P. J.
         Appellant appeals from a judgment committing her
to the Addiction and Mental Health Division of the Oregon
Health Authority for a period of 180 days based on a finding
that she had a mental illness. ORS 426.130. She asserts that
the trial court plainly erred in committing her based on her
violation of a “conditional release” agreement that did not
conform to the statutory provisions for conditional release
found in ORS chapter 426. The state concedes that the trial
court plainly erred and that the error merits correction by
this court. As explained below, we agree and accept that
concession.
         Appellant was brought before the court on several
criminal matters as well as a physician’s mental health
hold. The parties informed the court that they had reached
an agreement for “conditional release.” With respect to the
mental commitment, the court entered a judgment indicating that the parties had stipulated that appellant had a
mental disorder and was unable to meet her basic personal
needs, that the court would “hold the stipulation in abeyance” for two years from the date of the hearing, and that
appellant would agree, among other things, to engage in
treatment and medication services with a specified provider
and not use illegal drugs during that period. About a month
later, appellant was alleged to have failed to adhere to the
conditional release “pursuant to ORS 426.125.” A hearing
was held before a different judge, who heard evidence that
appellant had failed to engage in treatment and used illegal
drugs. The court indicated that it was ordering commitment
based on appellant’s earlier stipulation, and “to be specific,
I’m not making any findings. I don’t think that I could make
any findings about whether or not you would meet criteria
for commitment today. I am simply enforcing the agreement
that you made in admission that you met criteria about a
month ago.” The court entered the judgment of commitment
accordingly.
         ORS chapter 426 spells out in detail how mental
commitment proceedings are to be conducted. More particularly, ORS 426.130(2) permits a court, after making the
202                                                 State v. H. D.

requisite determination that a person with a mental illness
satisfies certain requirements, to order a conditional release:
      “A court that orders a conditional release, a commitment or assisted outpatient treatment under this section
   shall establish a period of commitment or treatment for
   the person subject to the order. Any period of commitment
   ordered for commitment or conditional release under this
   section shall be for a period of time not to exceed 180 days.”
Moreover, under ORS 426.125:
      “(1) A court may only order conditional release if all of
   the following occur:
       “(a) The conditional release is requested by the legal
   guardian, relative or friend of the person with mental
   illness.
       “(b) The legal guardian, relative or friend requesting
   the conditional release requests to be allowed to care for
   the person during the period of commitment in a place satisfactory to the judge.
       “(c) The legal guardian, relative or friend requesting
   the release establishes all of the following to the satisfaction of the court:
       “(A) The ability of the legal guardian, relative or friend
   to care for the person.
      “(B) That there are adequate financial resources available for the care of the person.”
         The two-year “conditional release” agreement that
the courts authorized and ultimately enforced in this case
did not comport with the requirements of ORS chapter 426.
We agree with the parties that this was plain error, and
exercise discretion to correct the error in light of its gravity.
         Reversed.