State v. C. P. (In re C. P.)
| Decision Date | 14 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | A169473 |
| Citation | 310 Or.App. 631,486 P.3d 845 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF C. P., a Person Alleged to have Intellectual Disabilities. State of Oregon, Respondent, v. C. P., Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc., filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge.
Appellant appeals from a judgment of involuntary civil commitment to the custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS) for a period not to exceed one year based on a determination that she is a person with an intellectual or other developmental disability that renders her a danger to herself and unable to provide for her basic needs. On appeal, she raises a number of unpreserved procedural challenges, namely that the trial court plainly erred by (1) holding a hearing on the merits instead of dismissing the case for failure to commence a commitment hearing within seven judicial days of the warrant of detention; (2) failing to serve the citation at least 24 hours before the hearing and because the citation did not identify the "possible consequences" of the hearing; and (3) issuing a warrant that failed to advise appellant of her right to counsel. We affirm.
To give context to appellant's procedural challenges, we begin with a brief description of the intellectual disability civil commitment framework constructed by ORS 427.215 through 427.306. Under ORS 427.235(1), the involuntary commitment process begins when two people submit a sworn notice to the court having probate jurisdiction or the circuit court that a person with an intellectual disability within the county is in need of commitment for residential care, treatment, and training. The sworn notice must set forth "the facts sufficient to show the need for investigation," and, if the court determines that the notice is sufficient to show a need for further investigation, then the court forwards the notice to the community development disabilities program for an investigation to begin immediately "to determine whether the person has an intellectual disability and is in need of commitment." Id.
The investigation report "shall be submitted to the court within 30 days of receipt of notice from the court." ORS 427.235(4). A copy of the investigation report must also be made available to DHS and to the person alleged to have an intellectual disability "as soon as possible after its completion, but in any case prior to a [commitment] hearing held under ORS 427.245." Id. After the court receives the investigative report, the court must determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the person has an intellectual disability and is in need of commitment. ORS 427.245(1). If the court finds probable cause, it issues a citation under ORS 427.245(2) and orders the person to appear for a hearing at a time and place directed by the court. ORS 427.245(1).
Pending investigation or hearing, the court may issue a warrant of detention "if the court has probable cause to believe that the failure to take the person into custody would pose an imminent and serious danger to the person or to others." ORS 427.255(1). Under ORS 427.245(1), if a person is detained by a warrant of detention issued under ORS 427.255, the court "shall hold the hearing within seven judicial days." One of the questions presented by this case is when that seven-day requirement starts: Does it start when a person is held by a warrant of detention or after the trial court issues the citation?
Finally, after a hearing to consider the investigative findings and evidence, the court has several options described in ORS 427.290, including discharge, conditional release, appointment of a legal guardian or conservator, or commitment to DHS for up to a year.1
With that background, we turn to the salient facts in this case, which are undisputed. On October 11, 2018, an affidavit and request for a warrant of detention was submitted to the court. The same day, the court issued a warrant of detention for appellant. Appellant had been refusing medications; however, after the warrant was served, she began taking her medications.
On October 16, a written petition for commitment under ORS 427.235 was signed by two individuals, alleging appellant's intellectual disability and need for residential care, treatment, and training. After receiving the petition, the court concluded that there was sufficient showing of the need for further investigation and forwarded notification to the community mental health program director for further investigation on October 19. Three days later on October 22, a second affidavit and request for a warrant of detention was submitted to the court, and the court issued a warrant of detention on October 23. On November 1, a third affidavit and request for a warrant was submitted, and the court issued the third warrant of detention on the same day.
On November 6, the investigative report was completed, and the court on the same day issued a citation for appellant to appear at a hearing on November 15. The next day, the court appointed counsel for appellant.
On November 15, the trial court conducted a civil commitment hearing under ORS 427.290. At the beginning of the hearing, the court advised appellant, who was represented by legal counsel throughout the hearing, of her right to legal counsel and about the consequences of the proceeding as required by ORS 427.265. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered appellant committed to the custody of DHS for a period of time not to exceed one year after making the determination that appellant had an intellectual or other developmental disability and because of that disability was a danger to herself, was unable to provide for basic personal needs and was not receiving care as is necessary for her health, safety, or habilitation, and that neither voluntary treatment nor conditional release was not in her best interest.
On appeal, appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the civil commitment; rather, she raises three unpreserved procedural challenges asserting that the trial court committed reversible plain error. More specifically, appellant acknowledges that she did not move to dismiss her case and that she did not preserve the contentions that she now raises on appeal, but she contends that the asserted errors satisfy the requirements to reach her assignments of error as ones of plain error. We discuss each assignment of error below and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err.
Plain-error review involves a two-step inquiry in which we first determine whether the error is plain, and second, whether to exercise our discretion to consider the error. ORAP 5.45 ; Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc. , 312 Or. 376, 381-82, 823 P.2d 956 (1991). To constitute plain error, the error must (1) be an error of law, (2) be obvious, i.e. , not reasonably in dispute, and (3) be "apparent on the record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences." State v. Vanornum , 354 Or. 614, 629, 317 P.3d 889 (2013). If the plain-error test is satisfied, we must then determine whether to exercise our discretion to review the error. Id . at 630, 317 P.3d 889 ().
We first address appellant's contention involving the final sentence in ORS 427.245(1), which requires the court, if the person is being held by a warrant of detention, to hold a hearing within seven judicial days. The question is "within seven judicial days" of what: from the issuance of the warrant or from the issuance of the court's citation. The parties’ arguments involve the statutory construction of several provisions within ORS chapter 427; thus, we review for errors of law. Consistently with the methodology prescribed in State v. Gaines , 346 Or. 160, 171-72, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009), we consider the statute's text in context, with reference to pertinent legislative history.
We begin with the relevant statutory text and context. ORS 427.245(1), provides:
Here, the parties’ dispute centers on the final sentence and its relationship to ORS 427.255(1), which provides, in part:
"If the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the failure to take into custody pending an investigation or hearing a person alleged to have an intellectual disability and be in need of commitment for residential care, treatment and training would pose an imminent and serious danger to the person or to others, the court may issue a warrant of detention to * * * take the person into custody and produce the person at the time and place stated in the warrant....
To continue reading
Request your trial