Conservatorship of Daniel R. CA1/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/9/24 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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, A170599
v.
(Sonoma County
DANIEL R.,
Super. Ct. No. SPR-089657)
Objector and Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Daniel R. appeals from a May 2024 trial court order renewing the
conservatorship over him under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act (Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). Last year, we reversed a prior order renewing
the conservatorship because the record did not demonstrate that Daniel R.
was informed of or waived his right to a jury trial. (Conservatorship of Daniel
R. (Oct. 5, 2023, A167485 [nonpub. opn.].) In this appeal, we agree with him
that reversal is again required for the same reason.
1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to
California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(2).
Daniel R.’s conservatorship was originally established in 2017 and
renewed several times. In March 2023, the trial court ordered the renewal of
the conservatorship, and we reversed that order in our prior opinion. The
remittitur issued in December 2023.
Meanwhile, on October 9, 2023, four days after our prior opinion issued,
the Public Conservator filed a new petition to renew the conservatorship.
The following May, after a court trial, the trial court found that Daniel R.
continued to be gravely disabled and granted the petition.
A proposed conservatee has “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).) The trial court is required to “inform the proposed
conservatee of . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . the right . . . to have the matter of the
establishment of the conservatorship tried by jury.” (Prob. Code, § 1828,
subd. (a)(6); see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350 [incorporating procedures from
Probate Code].) “This right shall also apply in subsequent proceedings to
reestablish conservatorship.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350, subd. (d)(3).) It is
well-settled “that a trial court must personally advise a person of the
statutory right to a jury trial in LPS proceedings.” (K.R. v. Superior Court
(2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133, 143, italics added.)
The record does not show that the trial court ever advised Daniel R. of
his right to a jury trial or that he ever waived that right. We also perceive no
basis on which to find that the omission was harmless. (See Conservatorship
of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378, 384–385.) The Public Conservator
did not file a respondent’s brief and thus does not dispute that prejudicial
error occurred.
2
The May 15, 2024 order reappointing the Public Conservator is
reversed. The matter is remanded for the trial court to personally advise
Daniel R. of his right to a jury trial.
3
_________________________
Humes, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Banke, J.
_________________________
Langhorne Wilson, J.
Conservatorship of Daniel R. A170599
4