State v. A. M. H.

710                  October 1, 2025                No. 855

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                 STATE OF OREGON

                In the Matter of A. M. H.,
         a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
                  STATE OF OREGON,
                       Respondent,
                            v.
                        A. M. H.,
                        Appellant.
             Umatilla County Circuit Court
                  24CC07159; A186387

  Eva J. Temple, Judge.
  Submitted August 8, 2025.
    Christopher J. O’Connor and Multnomah Defenders, Inc.,
filed the brief for appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  LAGESEN, C. J.
  Reversed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                           711

           LAGESEN, C. J.
        Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment committing her to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to
exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the purchase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that
judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered
from a mental disorder that caused her to be a danger to
self and others and that she was unable to provide for her
basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A)-(B). We reverse.1
         Appellant raises two assignments of error. Because
we reverse on appellant’s second assignment of error, we do
not reach her first assignment. In her second assignment
of error, appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred
when it held the commitment hearing after she had been
held involuntarily for more than five judicial days. The court
was required to dismiss the commitment action under those
circumstances. State v. L. O. W., 

,

 (2018). The state concedes the error. Having
reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s
concession. Given the nature of civil commitment cases, the
interests of the parties, the gravity of the error, and the ends
of justice, we exercise our discretion to correct the plain
error. State v. T. C., 

, 

 (2023),
rev den, 

 (2024).
           Reversed.




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.