446 April 2, 2025 No. 283 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 D. S., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness.

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. D. S., Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court 24CC02699; A184597 Drew P. Taylor, Judge pro tempore.

Submitted February 14, 2025.

Joseph R. DeBin and Multnomah Defenders Inc. filed the brief for appellant.

Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Patricia G. Rincon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Reversed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 339 Or App 446 (2025) 447 LAGESEN, C. J.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment commit- ting him to the Oregon Health Authority for a period not to exceed 180 days, as well as an order prohibiting the pur- chase or possession of firearms. The trial court entered that judgment and order after finding that appellant suffered from a mental disorder that caused him to be dangerous to himself and others and that he was unable to provide for his basic needs. See ORS 426.005(1)(f)(A)-(B). We reverse.1 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the state’s evidence to support the trial court’s determination that he had a mental illness, and that he was dangerous to him- self or others or unable to provide for his basic needs. The state concedes that the record was legally insufficient for the trial court to conclude that appellant was dangerous or unable to meet his basic needs. Having reviewed the record, we agree with and accept the state’s concession. See State v. S. R. J., 281 Or App 741, 749, 386 P3d 99 (2016) (“the threat- ened harm to self must involve serious and actual physical harm in the near term” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see id. at 754 (a person is dangerous to others when “actual future violence is highly likely” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. M. A. E., 299 Or App 231, 240, 448 P3d 656 (2019) (explaining that a person is unable to provide for basic personal needs when “the person’s safe sur- vival will be compromised—in the near future, even though that risk is not imminent”).

Reversed.

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