Conservatorship of Z.A. CA1/2 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/20/23 Conservatorship of Z.A. CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
Conservatorship of the Person of
Z.A.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PUBLIC GUARDIAN,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A166483
v.
Z.A., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct.
No. MSP21–00548
Objector and Appellant.
Appellant Z.A. appeals from a trial court order reappointing the Contra
Costa County Public Guardian as conservator of his person under the
Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350 et seq.; LPS Act).
This appeal is authorized by Probate Code section 1301.
Appointed counsel has filed a brief setting out the applicable facts and
law and asking this court to conduct a review of the record pursuant to
Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Counsel has also
informed appellant that he may file a supplemental brief and that if no
supplemental brief is filed, this court might dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief.
1
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 18, 2022, the Director of the Contra Costa County Health
Services Department (Public Guardian) filed a petition for reappointment as
conservator over appellant. The petition alleged appellant was declared
gravely disabled on June 15, 2021, and the conservatorship would terminate
on June 14, 2022, absent reappointment.1 It was alleged that, as a result of a
mental disorder, appellant was unable to provide for his basic personal needs
for food, clothing, and shelter and he continued to be gravely disabled. The
Public Guardian sought imposition of special disabilities that appellant (1)
not have the right to refuse psychotropic medications (Welf. & Inst. Code,2
§ 5357, subd. (d)) and (2) be disqualified from possessing firearms or any
other deadly weapon (id., subd. (f)).
At a hearing on May 13, 2022, appellant objected to reappointment of a
conservator and requested a jury trial. (See § 5350, subd. (d)(1) [“The person
for whom conservatorship is sought shall have the right to demand a court or
jury trial on the issue of whether the person is gravely disabled”].) Appellant
was represented by the Public Defender’s Office.
A trial on the question whether appellant was gravely disabled began
on October 24, 2022, with selection of the jury. Over the next two days, the
Public Guardian called three witnesses: Deputy Conservator Candelario
Castillo, Dr. Michael Levin, who testified as an expert in psychiatry and
evaluating for grave disability, and appellant’s sister.
1 The record shows appellant accepted conservatorship on June 15,
2021.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
2
Institutions Code.
2
Castillo is a licensed clinical social worker. He testified that, as deputy
conservator, he is “responsible for ensuring my conservatees are receiving
adequate treatment and housing and basically food, clothing or shelter.”
Castillo served as appellant’s conservator. He met appellant over Zoom in
August 2022, met with appellant and his treatment team by Zoom in early
October, and talked with appellant again by phone in late October. At trial,
Castillo testified about appellant’s affect and what appellant reported to
Castillo about his diagnoses, medications, and recent experiences.3
Levin is a psychiatrist who works “for the conservator’s office
evaluating people and then testifying as to whether or not they are gravely
disabled,” and he also sees patients at the Concord Adult Mental Health
Center. He testified that he has qualified as an expert witness in the area of
evaluation for grave disability in California over 200 times. Levin
interviewed appellant over Zoom in August and October of 2022 and
previously saw him in January 2018 and December 2016. He also reviewed
appellant’s medical records and spoke with appellant’s treating psychiatrist.
At trial, Levin described his interviews with appellant and the diagnosis he
reached. Levin also gave his opinion regarding appellant’s ability to
rationally advocate for himself to obtain shelter.
Appellant’s sister lived with their parents. She testified her role in the
family was “[f]amily caretaker [for] more than ten years.” Appellant lived at
home with the family in 2021, and his sister testified about his behavior in
the home. She visited appellant about two weeks before the trial, and she
3Appointed counsel applied for leave to file an unredacted brief under
seal and a public (redacted) version, noting that medical and psychological
reports are confidential, and this court granted the application. This opinion
does not discuss evidence that appellant described under seal.
3
described what he told her during the visit. Appellant’s sister testified their
parents were over 65 years old and appellant could not live at home with
them.
On October 26, the jury began deliberations and reached a verdict,
finding appellant was “presently gravely disabled due to a mental disorder.”
The court authorized the Public Guardian to place appellant in an
appropriate locked treatment facility and imposed special disabilities
prohibiting appellant from refusing treatment related to his grave disability
and from possessing firearms or other deadly weapons.
DISCUSSION
“In an indigent criminal defendant’s first appeal as a matter of right,
the Court of Appeal must independently review the record if appointed
counsel represents he or she has found no arguable issues. (Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 . . .; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436(Wende).)” (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 535.)
In Ben C., our high court held Wende review is not required in
conservatorship proceedings such as this one because of the “panoply of
safeguards appropriately geared to the specific goals and interests involved”
provided under the LPS Act. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 543.) In
dissent, Chief Justice George observed that the majority’s decision “in no way
prevents the Courts of Appeal from expending the minimal effort required to
provide these appeals with a second look and to provide an opinion that
briefly notes the court has reviewed the record and that identifies the
findings and evidence supporting the order,” and he encouraged appellate
courts “to expend the few hours required in these rare cases to ensure that
conservatees are not inappropriately confined, and to treat these individuals
in a considerate and compassionate manner rather than summarily
4
informing them that their appeals are frivolous and have been abandoned.”
(Id. at pp. 556–557 (dis. opn. of George, C.J.).)
Here, appellate counsel has provided a summary of the procedures
employed. We have taken the “second look” at the record suggested by the
Ben C. dissent, and we are satisfied substantial evidence supports the jury’s
verdict and the trial court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the order
reappointing the Public Guardian as conservator over appellant.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
5
_________________________
Miller, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Stewart, P.J.
_________________________
Markman, J.*
A166483, Contra Costa County Public Guardian v. Z.A.
*Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
6