Case Name: In the Matter of: Gloria Daulton, alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GLORIA DAULTON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1977-07-18
Citations: 30 Or. App. 217
Docket Number: No. 12,839, CA 7310
Parties: In the Matter of: Gloria Daulton, alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GLORIA DAULTON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, Thornton, Judge, and Fort, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 30
Pages: 217–219

Head Matter:
Argued June 28,
affirmed July 18, 1977
In the Matter of: Gloria Daulton, alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GLORIA DAULTON, Appellant.
(No. 12,839, CA 7310)
566 P2d 555
Andrew S. Craig, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was John W. Jensen, Salem.
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were James A. Redden, Attorney General, and W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, Thornton, Judge, and Fort, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by a mentally ill person from an order of commitment for a period up to 180 days for further treatment entered after hearing pursuant to ORS 426.301-426.307. No challenge is directed to the procedures employed, but is solely on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding at the time of the hearing that the patient was mentally ill beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by ORS 426.307. State v. G., 26 Or App 197, 552 P2d 574, Sup Ct review denied (1976); State v. Heintz, 26 Or App 935, 554 P2d 556 (1976); State v. Alexander, 26 Or App 943, 554 P2d 524 (1976).
The briefs and the record adequately set forth the facts relied upon by the parties in support of their respective positions. Our review is de novo. State v. O'Neill, 274 Or 59, 545 P2d 97 (1976); State v. G., supra.
As we said in State v. G, supra at 202:
" From our review of the record we conclude that the evidence does establish that as of that date [date of hearing] appellant was beyond a reasonable doubt a mentally ill person in need of further treatment. No useful purpose would be served by a detailed delineation of the evidence ."
We reach the same conclusion here.
Affirmed.