State v. H.D.

A court may order a conditional release of a person with mental illness only if the release is requested by the legal guardian, relative or friend of the person who requested to be allowed to care for the person “during the period of commitment in a place satisfactory to the judge,” and who has the ability and adequate financial resources to care for the person. ORS 426.125(1)(a)-(c).

Appellant entered into an agreement with the State for a conditional release after being brought before the trial court “on several criminal matters as well as a physician’s mental health hold.” The agreement stipulated that Appellant “had a mental disorder and was unable to meet her personal needs;” that the court would “hold the stipulation in abeyance” for two years; and that Appellant would voluntarily seek “treatment and medication services,” and would refrain from illegal drug use during those two years. About a month later, the trial court found Appellant “failed to engage in treatment and used illegal drugs,” and entered a judgment committing her to the Addiction and Mental Health Division of the Oregon Health Authority for 180 days. On appeal, Appellant argued that the conditional release agreement “did not conform to the statutory provisions for conditional release.” A court may order a conditional release of a person with mental illness only if the release is requested by the legal guardian, relative or friend of the person who requested to be allowed to care for the person “during the period of commitment in a place satisfactory to the judge,” and who has the ability and adequate financial resources to care for the person. ORS 426.125(1)(a)-(c). Because the conditional release agreement did not conform to these statutory requirements, the Court found plain error and exercised its “discretion to correct the error in light of its gravity.” Reversed.