State v. M. T.

When assessing an appointed counsel’s “suitability” under ORS 426.100(3), poor performance alone does not justify sua sponte substitution of counsel.

Appellant was placed in the custody of the Oregon Health Authority due to his inability to meet his own basic needs and the risk he posed to others because of his mental health. Appellant appealed the order, contending that the court erred by not assigning suitable counsel to his case. Appellant argued that his appointed counsel did not meet the standard of “suitable” under ORS 426.100(3), and that the hearing should have been stopped when it became clear that his counsel lacked the necessary skill and experience. Appellant further clarified that this was not a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel. The State responded that Appellant failed to raise this issue during the hearing, and that any inadequacies of Appellant's counsel were not “plain.” Under ORS 426.100(3), a mentally ill person has the right to suitable counsel who possess the skills and experience appropriate to the case’s nature and complexity. The Court concluded that poor performance alone did not justify sua sponte substitution of counsel.  The Court further stated that the existing record provided no evidence that Appellant’s counsel lacked the requisite qualifications, and without this information, it could not determine that trial court erred in appointing counsel. In addition, Appellant failed to show that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the counsel’s appointment. AFFIRMED.