State v. S. P.

No. 533 June 11, 2025 283 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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 Jill BONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Oregon Attorney General, Defendants-Respondents. Douglas County Circuit Court 23CV45434; A185121 Jason R. Thomas, Judge. Submitted May 12, 2025. Jill Bong filed the briefs pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondents. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. AOYAGI, P. J. Affirmed. 284 Bong v. Dept. of Justice AOYAGI, P. J. In March 2023, petitioner filed a federal action that included claims against the former governor of Oregon and the former director of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) in their individual and official capacities. A senior assistant attorney general (AAG) from the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) appeared on behalf of the former governor and the former OHA director in both their individual and official capacities. Petitioner challenged the AAG’s authority to appear for the defendants in their individual capacities. The federal court rejected that challenge. Petitioner then filed this state court action against the Oregon Attorney General and the DOJ, challenging their authority to defend former or current state officials, officers, or employees in their personal capacities in specified circumstances. The circuit court held a stipulated facts trial and ultimately dismissed the case on two grounds: (1) that petitioner lacked standing to object to what lawyer rep- resents her opponents in court, for reasons detailed at length in the court’s letter opinion, and (2) that any complaint about the qualifications or status of another party’s lawyer should be directed to the court in which that lawyer is appearing— here, to the federal court, which had already rejected petition- er’s challenge to the AAG’s representation—rather than being raised in a separate action in a different court. On appeal, petitioner contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing her state court action. In five assign- ments of error, she challenges the court’s ruling, arguing that she has standing, that the court misframed the issue, that the court improperly resurrected a waived claim-splitting defense, that the court’s second basis for dismissal was wrong, and that the court had authority to issue an injunc- tion in this case. The state responds that the circuit court properly dismissed the case, because petitioner met none of the elements of standing, and because the circuit court could not be required to direct proceedings in a federal dis- trict court as petitioner sought. Having reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with the state that the trial court did not err in dismissing the action. Petitioner failed Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 283 (2025) 285 to establish standing, which is dispositive. Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed.

278 June 11, 2025 No. 532 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 J. S., a Person Alleged to have Mental Illness. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. J. S., Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 24CC02596; A184449 R. Curtis Conover, Judge. Argued and submitted March 20, 2025. Christopher J. O’Connor argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Multnomah Defenders, Inc. Joanna Hershey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Pagán, Judge, and Walters, Senior Judge. SHORR, P. J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 278 (2025) 279 SHORR, P. J. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment involun- tarily committing him to the Oregon Health Authority for up to 180 days on the basis that appellant has a mental dis- order that makes him a danger both to himself and others. He raises two assignments of error. First, he contends that the trial court erred by committing him on the basis that he was a danger to himself after the state had withdrawn that allegation. Second, he argues that the evidence was insuffi- cient for the court to find that he was either a danger to him- self or others at the time of his hearing. As we explain below, we do not reach appellant’s first assignment. We reject his second assignment to the extent that we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support appellant’s com- mitment based on danger to others. As a result, we affirm. Neither party has requested de novo review, and this is not an exceptional case that justifies such review. See ORAP 5.40(8)(C) (we exercise discretion to review de novo “only in exceptional cases”). We therefore review the suffi- ciency of the evidence to support appellant’s civil commit- ment for legal error and are bound by the trial court’s fac- tual findings that are supported by evidence in the record. State v. C. M. C., 301 Or App 206, 207, 454 P3d 30 (2019). We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the trial court’s disposition.” State v. T. Y., 285 Or App 21, 22, 396 P3d 986 (2017). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background, we recite in our analysis only those facts necessary to explain our decision. In appellant’s first assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred in determining that he was a danger to himself after the state had withdrawn that alle- gation, asserting that the court violated his due process rights in doing so. Before the trial court, appellant did not argue that it was error or a due process violation for the court to commit him on a theory—danger to self—that the state had declined to pursue. As a result, the state contends that appellant did not preserve his first assignment of error. We do not address the issue of preservation or the merits of appellant’s argument. Instead, we conclude that, because we affirm the trial court’s judgment on an alternative basis, 280 State v. J. S. we do not need to resolve the first assignment of error. We turn to that alternative basis and consider appellant’s argu- ment that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s civil commitment ruling. Appellant’s second assignment of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s determination that he was a danger to others, ORS 426.005 (1)(f)(A).1 The state responds that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that appellant was a danger to others. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence in the record for the trial court to determine that appellant was a danger to others. “To permit commitment on the basis of dangerousness to others, the state must establish that actual future violence is highly likely.” State v. C. L., 313 Or App 539, 542, 495 P3d 748 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether a person is a danger to others is deter- mined by his condition at the time of the hearing as under- stood in the context of his history. State v. D. L. W., 244 Or App 401, 405, 260 P3d 691 (2011). If a mentally ill person has “threatened others and has also carried out an overt violent act in the past against another person, those facts generally constitute clear and convincing evidence that the person is a danger to others.” Id. In the weeks leading up to hi

No. 525 June 4, 2025 211 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 SIRGIORGIO SANFORD CLARDY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision A181462 Submitted on May 15, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Shawn Wiley, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the opening brief for peti- tioner. Sir Giorgio Sanford Clardy filed the supplemental brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 212 Clardy v. Board of Parole PER CURIAM Petitioner is an adult in custody who was sentenced as a dangerous offender to serve 300 months with a man- datory minimum of 75 months on multiple felony counts. Petitioner assigns error to the Board of Parole and Post- Prison Supervision’s (the board) order denying him release and deferring parole consideration for two years. He argues that the board applied improper standards to the deter- mination of whether he was eligible for release, and that the board’s determinations are unsupported by substantial evidence resulting in a final order that lacked substantial reason. The board argues that it applied the proper stan- dards to the release determination according to our prior decisions, and that its factual findings were based upon sub- stantial evidence in the record. We affirm. We review a board order “for legal error, substantial evidence, and substantial reason.” Bell v. Board of Parole, 283 Or App 711, 713, 391 P3d 907, rev den, 361 Or 645 (2017). First, we address petitioner’s argument that the board applied the wrong standard. When a person is sentenced as a dangerous offender, the trial court has made a finding that the person was suffering from a severe personality disorder that predis- posed them to commit crimes that seriously endangered the life or safety of another. We have previously determined, in a case not materially distinguishable from this one, that the test the board applied, including whether petitioner still suf- fered from a mental disorder that predisposed him to com- mit any crime, is appropriate. Guzek v. Board of Parole, 325 Or App 795, 804, 530 P3d 510, rev den, 371 Or 476 (2023). Similar to that case, we have considered the record, and determine that the board’s intermediate determinations that petitioner lacked remorse for the victims, failed to engage in mental health treatment, and resisted being supervised as a sex offender, are amply supported by evidence in the record, and petitioner’s own statements to the board—quoted in the board’s letter of deferral—reinforce our determination that the board considered the appropriate standard in denying release and deferring the next parole consideration hearing. We also find the psychologist’s finding that peti- tioner is currently suffering from antisocial personality Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 211 (2025) 213 disorder to be adequately supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record, despite problems associated with the Personality Assessment Inventory test. The board’s duty at the parole consideration hearing is to determine whether petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he is no longer dangerous at the time of the parole con- sideration hearing. Davis v. Board of Parole, 341 Or 442, 448, 144 P3d 931 (2006). Here, the board adequately con- nected its reasons for denial to evidence in the record, and it did not err. Affirmed.