Conservatorship of Daniel R. CA1/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 10/5/23 Conservatorship of Daniel R. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ONE
Conservatorship of the Person of
Daniel R.
SONOMA COUNTY PUBLIC
CONSERVATOR,
Petitioner and Respondent, A167485
v.
(Sonoma County
DANIEL R.,
Super. Ct. No. SPR-089657)
Objector and Appellant.
Daniel R. appealed from an order renewing the conservatorship over
him under the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 5000 et seq.) (LPS). He argues that the order must be reversed
since he was never adequately advised of his right to a jury trial and
because substantial evidence does not support the imposition of various
disabilities. Because we agree that the record does not demonstrate that
1
Daniel personally waived his right to a jury trial, we reverse in this
memorandum opinion.1
Respondent Sonoma County Public Conservator (Public
Conservator) in November 2016 filed a petition for the imposition of an
LPS conservatorship over Daniel. The trial court found Daniel to be
gravely disabled in January 2017, appointed the Public Conservator as his
conservator, and issued letters of conservatorship. The conservatorship
was renewed five times.
The trial court most recently ordered the renewal of Daniel’s
conservatorship (for a sixth time) on March 15, 2023, following a court
trial. Nowhere in the reporter’s transcripts or the minute orders of the
hearings leading up to the renewal does it appear that Daniel was advised
of his right to a jury trial regarding the reappointment of the Public
Conservator, or that he personally waived the right.
A proposed conservatee in LPS proceedings “shall have the right to
demand a court or jury trial on the issue of whether the person is gravely
disabled.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350, subd. (d)(1).) “This right shall also
apply in subsequent proceedings to reestablish conservatorship.” (Id.,
subd. (d)(3).) “LPS commitment proceedings require the court to obtain a
personal waiver of the right to a jury trial from the proposed conservatee.”
(Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378, 383.)
Participation in a court trial does not forfeit or waive the right to a jury
trial. (K.R. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133, 137.) And such
an error is not harmless even if evidence supports the finding that the
1 A memorandum opinion contains “little or no reference to the
evidence or the procedural history of the action and . . . an abbreviated
discussion of the relevant legal issues and authorities.” (People v. Garcia
(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850.)
2
conservatee is gravely disabled. (Conservatorship of Heather W., supra,
245 Cal.App.5th at p. 384.) The Public Conservator does not dispute the
error, as it declined to file a respondent’s brief.
The order reappointing the Public Conservator is reversed. Because
we reverse the order, we need not decide whether the imposition of
disabilities was supported by substantial evidence, as the imposition was
based on the testimony presented to the trial court alone.
3
_________________________
Humes, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Margulies, J.
_________________________
Getty, J.*
*Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Solano, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
Conservatorship of the Person of Daniel R. A167485
4