State v. M. L. B.
State v. M. L. B.
Opinion
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
Submitted May 26, affirmed June 29, 2022
In the Matter of M. L. B., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. M. L. B., Appellant.
Deschutes County Circuit Court 21CC03802; A176506
Owyhee Weikel-Magden, Judge pro tempore.
Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders, Inc. filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Eric Seepe, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before James, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
JOYCE, J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 320 Or App 644 (2022) 645 JOYCE, J.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order committing her to the custody of the Oregon Health Authority for up to days. Appellant argues that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that, because of a mental dis- order, she is dangerous to others. See ORS 426.130(1)(a); ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A). Neither party has requested that we review this matter de novo, and we conclude that this is not an “exceptional” case that warrants de novo review.
See ORAP 5.40(8)(C). We thus defer to the trial court’s find- ings of fact if there is any evidence in the record to support them and review the court’s legal conclusions for legal error.
State v. B. B., 240 Or App 75, 77, 245 P3d 697 (2010). We have reviewed the record and based on appellant’s pattern of aggressive behavior leading up to the commitment hear- ing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that appellant was a danger to others.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.