From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Bradsteen

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 15, 2004
196 Or. App. 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2004)

Summary

In A. E. B., we reversed an order of involuntary commitment for mental illness when the hearing occurred more than five judicial days after the placement of a physician's hold under ORS 427.232(2).

Summary of this case from State v. C. P. (In re C. P.)

Opinion

0212-73484; A120277.

Submitted on record and briefs November 23, 2004.

December 15, 2004.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Lewis B. Lawrence, Judge.

Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant.

Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim and Schuman, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reversed.


Appellant appeals the trial court's decision committing him to the custody of the Mental Health Division for a period of 180 days. ORS 426.130. We reverse.

Appellant was held for five judicial days after he was placed on a hospital hold. See ORS 426.232. At the end of that period, he was placed on a second hold for five days. The hearing on his case occurred on the tenth day after the initial hold. Appellant argues, and the state concedes, that the second hold violated ORS 426.232(2), which provides that "under no circumstances may the person [held on a hospital hold] be held for longer than five judicial days." ORS 426.095(2) requires a hearing within five judicial days except in circumstances that did not exist in this case. We agree with the parties that the statutes are unambiguous in this respect. Because the hearing did not occur within the required period, the trial court should have dismissed the case.

Reversed.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Bradsteen

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 15, 2004
196 Or. App. 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2004)

In A. E. B., we reversed an order of involuntary commitment for mental illness when the hearing occurred more than five judicial days after the placement of a physician's hold under ORS 427.232(2).

Summary of this case from State v. C. P. (In re C. P.)

In State v. A. E. B., 196 Or. App. 634, 635, 106 P.3d 647 (2004), and State v. J. D., 208 Or. App. 751, 752, 145 P.3d 336 (2006), we explained that the hold provisions of the civil commitment statutes cannot be bypassed by placing a new hold on an appellant in order to restart the five-day time period.

Summary of this case from State v. R. O. W. (In re R. O. W.)

In State v. A. E. B., 196 Or. App. 634, 635, 106 P.3d 647 (2004), and State v. J. D., 208 Or. App. 751, 752, 145 P.3d 336 (2006), we explained that the hold provisions of the civil commitment statutes cannot be circumvented by simply placing a new hold on an appellant who has already been held more than five judicial days without a hearing.

Summary of this case from State v. M. Z. (In re M. Z.)
Case details for

In the Matter of Bradsteen

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Alan E. Bradsteen, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 15, 2004

Citations

196 Or. App. 634 (Or. Ct. App. 2004)
106 P.3d 647

Citing Cases

State v. W. B. R. (In re W. B. R.)

ORS 426.232(2); ORS 426.234(4); ORS 426.095(2). SeeState v. A. E. B., 196 Or App 634, 635, 106 P3d 6476…

State v. R. O. W. (In re R. O. W.)

State v. L. O. W ., 292 Or. App. 376, 380-81, 424 P.3d 789 (2018). In State v. A. E. B ., 196 Or. App. 634,…