In the Matter of H. H. J., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
H. H. J., Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
Submitted October 23, 2018
Multnomah County Circuit Court 16CC06581 Monica M.
Smith-Herranz, Judge pro tempore.
Alexander C. Cambier and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., fled the
brief for appellant.
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor
General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General,
fled the brief for respondent.
Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James,
appeals a judgment continuing her commitment, arguing that
the trial court plainly erred by failing to advise her of all
of the possible results of the proceeding. Specifcally, she
contends that the court erred by failing to inform her of the
possibilities of voluntary treatment and conditional release.
Held: It is not plain that the possible results of
recommitment proceedings include voluntary treatment or
conditional release. The trial court did not plainly err.
Or.App. 200] LAGESEN, P. J.
appeals a judgment continuing her commitment for mental
illness for an additional period of up to 180 days. She
argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to
provide the advice of rights and information specified in ORS
426.100(1). The state disputes that the court erred at all,
or that the error could qualify as plain. We affirm.
appellant's recommitment hearing, the trial court
informed appellant at the outset of the hearing that, if the
court found by clear and convincing evidence that appellant
was a person with mental illness, it could continue
appellant's commitment for up to 180 days, and that, if
the state failed to prove that, then "you'd be free
State v. M. M, 288 Or App 111, 115, 405 P3d 192
(2017), appellant argues that the trial court plainly erred
when it failed to inform her as required by ORS 426.lOO(1)(c)
of all of the possible results of the proceeding, including
the possibilities of voluntary treatment and conditional
release.The state responds that it is not plain
that ORS 426.100(1) even applies in this circumstance, but
that, even if it does, the trial court did not err at all
because neither conditional release nor voluntary treatment
is a possible outcome of the recommitment proceedings, under
the applicable statutes. [296 Or.App. 201] For the reasons that
follow, we conclude that the trial court did not plainly err.
without deciding that it is plain that ORS 426.100(1) applies
to recommitment proceedings, the question remains whether the
possible results of those proceedings include voluntary
treatment or conditional release. Three statutes provide the
framework for the continuation of a person's existing
period of commitment. State v. T. Z., 287 Or App
8,12, 401 P3d 1265 (2017). ORS 426.301(1) provides:
"At the end of the 180-day period of commitment, any
person whose status has not been changed to voluntary shall
be released unless the Oregon Health Authority certifies to
the court in the county where the treating facility is
located that the person is still a person with mental illness
and is in need of further treatment. * * * If the
certification is made, the person will not be released, but
the director of the treating facility shall immediately issue
a copy of the certification to the person and to the
community mental health program director of the county of
certification is made, ORS 426.301(2) and (3) require that it
be served on the person and that the certification advise the
person of certain rights and information. Next, [296
Or.App. 202] ORS 426.303 provides ...