1

Filed 4/14/15 Public Guardian of Sonoma County v. E.H. CA1/4 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 FOUR 

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF SONOMA 

COUNTY, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

E.H., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 A143271 

 (Sonoma County 

 Super. Ct. No. SPR82694) 

 E.H. is charged with first degree murder in the April 2007 death of his mother. 

Reportedly, he stabbed her with a sword 16 times after his persistent Star Wars delusions 

convinced him that she had been taken over by the “dark side.” After being found 

incompetent to stand trial pursuant to section 1370 of the Penal Code, E.H. was 

committed to Napa State Hospital in September 2007. As he was not restored to 

competency after a period of three years, the Sonoma County Public Conservator (Public 

Conservator) petitioned the court in June 2010 to establish a so-called “Murphy 

conservatorship” for E.H. under the Lanterman-Petris Short Act (LPS Act), Welfare & 

Institutions Code, section 5000 et seq.1

 This renewable one-year conservatorship was 

 

1

 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise 

indicated. Named after the author of the 1974 legislation which created it, a Murphy 

conservatorship is based on an alternate definition of gravely disabled under the LPS Act 

applicable to persons who have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial and are 

charged with a violent felony. (In re Polk (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1237.) 
2

most recently extended by the trial court on August 20, 2014, to cover the period from 

July 26, 2014, through July 26, 2015. 

 E.H. appealed, and his appellate attorney has filed a brief raising no specific issues 

but asking us to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 

(Anders). Although appellate counsel acknowledges that, in Conservatorship of Ben C.

(2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), the California Supreme Court declined to extend 

Wende/Anders procedures to “typical” LPS Act appeals, he argues that a different result 

is required for appeals involving Murphy conservatorships due to their entanglement with 

an underlying criminal matter and their less extensive procedural protections. We do not 

decide whether Wende review is mandated in this context. However, our discretionary 

review of the record has uncovered no issues requiring further briefing, and we therefore 

affirm. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In its Conservatorship Investigation Report filed with the trial court in 2010 

(Investigation Report), the Pubic Conservator indicated that E.H. had initially been 

diagnosed as schizophrenic in 1996 at age 22 and had been conserved on two previous 

occasions prior to the establishment of the Murphy conservatorship that is the subject of 

these proceedings. Specifically, E.H. was conserved in 2002 after he was observed 

throwing bullets at some young men in a parking lot. E.H.’s mother reported at that time 

that her son was not medicated, was delusional, and displayed paranoid behavior. 

Moreover, E.H. reportedly believed that “ ‘aliens had landed’ ” and that he had “ ‘an xwing fighter in his head that depletes his memory.’ ” E.H. was integrated back into the 

community in 2005, but was conserved a second time in 2006 after he disclosed that he 

had stopped taking his psychotropic medications and that “voices were telling him to do 

violent things that he felt powerless to refuse.” E.H. apparently showed no insight into 

his mental illness during this conservatorship and refused voluntary medication. He was 

placed in a board and care facility, where he was residing at the time of his mother’s 

murder. 
3

 The Investigation Report further indicated that, due to his mental illness, E.H. 

suffered “continuous persecutory delusions about ‘people who live below us needing to 

be rescued,’ ‘Star Wars,’ ‘conflicts in space,’ individuals called ‘the greys,’ and believing 

that ‘his eyes were poked out causing his brain to collapse and cease to function.’ ” 

Although he suffered from persistent, fixed delusions even when medicated, his delusions 

increased drastically when he was not medicated and historically manifested in violent 

thoughts and actions. E.H. believed that his mother was not really his biological mother 

and that her murder was justified due to her “ ‘being on the dark side’ ” and “ ‘wearing 

[Darth] Vad[e]r’s gloves giving her power.’ ” E.H. additionally stated that he had killed 

his “ ‘so called mother’ ” because she was attempting to have psychics from Sebastopol 

poison his food from Applebee’s. In determining that E.H. was incompetent to stand 

trial, the court-appointed alienist concluded: “ ‘Although he is aware that he is charged 

with killing his mother, he feels that she was not his mother and his account is so 

dominated by delusional themes that he is clearly incompetent and cannot answer 

questions in his own defense in a rational manner.’ ” 

 According to the Public Conservator, E.H. showed no remorse for his crime, did 

not believe he was schizophrenic (possessing instead only a “healthy” amount of 

paranoia), displayed continuous resistance to medication, and reported that he would not 

take his prescribed medications if released. Given his lack of insight, the Public 

Conservator opined that E.H. remained a danger to others in society. Indeed, the Public 

Conservator identified “no evidence” that E.H. could “successfully fend for himself or 

take responsibility for treatment of his mental illness.” On this basis, a Murphy 

conservatorship was established for E.H. on July 30, 2010. 

 In connection with the 2011 conservatorship renewal, E.H. continued to maintain 

that he was not mentally ill, but that the doctors were simply unaware “of the ‘dark side’ 

forces that threaten him, because he is ‘a little bit of a someone.’ ” E.H. further indicated 

that his mother had betrayed him by spreading the lie that he was mentally ill and that he 

did not regret her murder because “ ‘bad things’ related to the dark side’s expected rise in 

power will happen and would be amplified were she alive.” At the time of his 2012 
4

renewal, E.H.’s doctor stated that E.H. remained delusional and suspicious of other 

people being on the dark side. He reportedly believed that legal proceedings are part of 

this dark side conspiracy and that his sister had recently gone over to the dark side, along 

with other individuals he refused to name. In the doctor’s opinion, given his persistent 

delusions, E.H. presented “a very real danger to kill again.” In 2013, E.H.’s dark side 

delusions continued and he remained delusional about the people around him, opining 

that his treatment team members were talking to the CIA about him. 

 In June 2014, the Public Conservator again petitioned the trial court for 

reappointment as E.H.’s Murphy conservator for an additional year. The petition was 

supported by the medical opinion of two physicians who opined that E.H. continued to be 

gravely disabled as defined by subdivision (h)(1)(B) of section 5008, such that a Murphy 

conservatorship remained appropriate.2

 (See § 5361.) The Public Conservator also 

submitted evidence (via a request for judicial notice) that E.H. had been indicted for 

murder and been found mentally incompetent in January 2010 and that the indictment 

had not been dismissed. Moreover, in an accompanying declaration, E.H.’s treating 

physician indicated that he continued to be delusional and paranoid, had difficulty 

differentiating between fantasy and reality, could not assist counsel, and represented a 

danger to others. 

 

2

 A person is gravely disabled for purposes of that statute if he or she has been found 

mentally incompetent under section 1370 of the Penal Code and all of the following are 

true: (1) the indictment or information pending against the person at the time of 

commitment charges a “felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to 

the physical well-being of another person;” (2) the indictment or information has not 

been dismissed; and (3) “[a]s a result of a mental health disorder, the person is unable to 

understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings taken against him or her and to 

assist counsel in the conduct of his or her defense in a rational manner.” (§ 5008, 

subd. (h)(1)(B).) To these statutory requirements, the California Supreme Court has 

added an additional, constitutionally required finding: that the conservatee is “ ‘currently 

dangerous as the result of a mental disease, defect, or disorder.’ ” (County of Los Angeles 

v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 434, 442-443 (County of Los Angeles), quoting 

Conservatorship of Hofferber (1980) 28 Cal.3d 161, 178.) 
5

 At the hearing on August 20, 2014, E.H.’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Dumitrescu, 

was qualified as an expert in psychiatry and testified regarding E.H.’s mental condition. 

Although Dr. Dumitrescu had only recently been assigned to E.H’s case, he met with 

E.H. on two occasions, talked to staff, and reviewed the conservatee’s records in support 

of his stated observations and opinions. Specifically, Dr. Dumitrescu indicated that E.H. 

continued to have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, paranoid type, and that he had personally 

observed E.H. to suffer from “[d]elusions, primarily focused on Star Wars and 

paranormal, and delusions of [a] persecutory nature” which were similar to the delusions 

he was operating under at the time of his mother’s murder. Based on E.H.’s delusions 

and distortion of reality, it was the psychiatrist’s opinion that E.H. would not be able to 

understand or follow complex legal proceedings; nor would he be able to assist in his 

own defense. Further, E.H. remained unconvinced that he suffered from a mental 

disorder and told Dr. Dumitrescu that he would not take his medication if released. 

Dr. Dumitrescu believed that, without medication, E.H.’s condition would worsen. He 

further opined that there was a substantial risk that E.H.’s delusions would lead him to 

cause physical harm or kill another person and that he posed “a current risk for danger.” 

 E.H. also testified. He stated that he did meditation while in jail and at Napa State 

Hospital, a practice that was unavailable to him before the death of his mother: “But one 

of the problems with it is, um, I had an open aura, and auras can be open in the front. I 

believe San Francisco has an open aura, France has open auras. The High Command has 

open auras. I believe criminal lawyers usually have open auras. . . . And you can’t really 

do it with an open aura, at all. . . . And killing [my mother] was actually an added bonus, 

it closed my aura so I can be allowed to do the meditation.” E.H. stated that, if released, 

he would return to Rohnert Park and try to continue his meditation there. This location 

was preferable due to an abundance of black dirt because, according to E.H., “the 

meditation I do, my stand-up gold thrives on black dirt around it, and really kind of 

dwindles on brown dirt.” E.H. claimed he would support himself with social security 

benefits, but also stated: “I actually have some crystallized time food crystals that can 

come out of me . . . . It’s actually crystallized time fluid. Time fluid is—it’s something 
6

you get from sex. It’s a gift from women. . . . [A]nd they sell at about a million dollars 

each.” His plan was to sell one of these crystals and buy a house. 

 With respect to the force and the dark side, E.H. further testified: “The meditation 

I’m doing, stand-up gold, Harrison Ford is actually a pretty major genuine threat against 

it. The actor. He’s kind of notorious around the universe and performing lately. And he 

attacks it. . . . [¶] . . . And some of my circumstances have actually been pulled together 

with James T. Kirk in the movie, I’m helping out a little bit, helping out in the universe 

. . . . But the force itself actually is a threat and it actually gets taken down by the 

meditation, stand-up gold, that I do.” According to E.H., however, the dark side forces 

do not necessarily need to be destroyed, as they can “actually be converted to good by 

doing things like wearing brown clothes and white clothes.” 

 E.H. did not believe he was dangerous and would not take medication if released, 

as he gets “Satanically possessed” when he takes it. He summed things up by stating: 

“The universe itself just sort of needs me out soon. It would tremendously help. There’s 

a lot of danger going on.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the 

Public Conservator’s petition to extend E.H.’s Murphy conservatorship. This timely 

appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION 

As stated above, appellate counsel in this matter filed a Wende brief, asking us to 

conduct our own independent review of the record. In addition to setting forth the facts 

and procedural posture of this case, counsel indicated that he advised E.H. that he could 

request appointment of a new attorney. He also informed E.H. of his right to file a 

supplemental brief with this court within 30 days, in order to bring to the court’s attention 

any issues E.H. believes deserve review. We have not received a supplemental brief. 

 Generally, speaking, Wende review is required only for an indigent criminal 

defendant’s first appeal as a matter of right. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 535-537.) 

In Ben C., our Supreme Court refused to extend this right of independent review to 

appeals from civil judgments under the LPS Act, despite the fact that such judgments 

result in a significant deprivation of liberty. (Id. at pp. 535, 537-538, 540.) Other cases 
7

have similarly resisted extending Wende review in various noncriminal contexts, 

including appeals similar to the one before us. (People v. Dobson (2008) 161 

Cal.App.4th 1422, 1425, 1430-1438 [Wende review not required in an appeal from a 

denial of a petition for restoration of competency under Penal Code section 1026.2 filed 

by an individual previously found not guilty by reason of insanity]; People v. Taylor

(2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 308, 312-313 [Wende review not required in appeal from 

postconviction commitment under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act, Pen. Code, 

§ 2962 et seq.]; see also In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 959 [no Wende review for 

appeals from orders affecting parental custody in juvenile dependency cases].) 

 Appellate counsel urges us to conclude that Murphy conservatorships should be 

treated differently for purposes of Wende review, given their criminal underpinnings and 

streamlined procedural structure. The provisions for Murphy conservatorships were 

added to the LPS Act in 1974 “in order to distinguish between persons who do, and do 

not, present a danger to the public. They are intended to ‘address the difficult problem of 

integrating and resolving the conflicting concerns of protecting society from dangerous 

individuals who are not subject to criminal prosecution,’ while ‘preserving a libertarian 

policy regarding the indefinite commitment of mentally incompetent individuals who 

have yet to be convicted of criminal conduct, and safeguarding the freedom of 

incompetent criminal defendants who present no threat to the public.’ ” (County of Los 

Angeles, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 445; People v. Karriker (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 

763, 775-776 (Karriker).) However, although Murphy conservatorships are based on an 

alternate definition of grave disability under the LPS Act, they are still a type of civil 

commitment and, once established, they are subject to the same annual renewal process 

and procedural protections applicable generally to long-term LPS conservatorships. 

(§§ 5008, subd. (h)(1), 5361; County of Los Angeles, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at pp. 442-

443, 445, 454; Karriker, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 776.) Under such circumstances, 

we doubt an appeal involving a Murphy conservatorship is distinguishable in any 

meaningful way from the precedent cited above which refused to mandate Wende review 

in similar contexts. 
8

 Nevertheless, we note that, in his dissent in Ben C., former Chief Justice George 

argued in the context of the LPS Act that “[i]t is undisputed that the private interests at 

stake are of the most fundamental nature, as the conservatee may be subjected to 

restraints upon physical freedom and personal autonomy for lengthy periods, and may be 

denied other basic civil rights as well.” (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 545, 547 (dis. 

opn. of George, C.J.).) Under such circumstances, as the dissent indicates, it is a small 

matter “to confirm that proper procedures were followed and that the order is supported 

by sufficient evidence.” (Id. at p. 555, (dis. opn. of George, C.J.).) Indeed, even the 

majority opinion in Ben C. indicates that appellate courts possess the discretion to retain 

such an appeal for consideration in the appropriate case. (Id. at p. 544, fn. 7; see also id. 

at p. 556, (dis. opn. of George, C.J.) [“[t]he majority’s holding that independent review is 

not constitutionally required in LPS appeals 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”].) 

Thus, while we may not be required to do so, we elect in this case to exercise our 

discretion to conduct a full record review, both because the record is short and because 

E.H. has been committed for a significant period of time without any appellate 

consideration of his circumstances. Having performed the discretionary review requested 

by appellate counsel, we find no issues that require further briefing. A court order 

continuing a conservatorship pursuant to section 5361 is reviewed on appeal for 

substantial evidence. (Conservatorship of Walker (1989) 206 Cal.App.3d 1572, 1577;

Conservatorship of Murphy (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 15, 18.) As recited above, there was 

substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order extending E.H.’s Murphy 

conservatorship. Indeed, the evidence that he continues to fall within the statutory 

criteria was overwhelming and largely undisputed. Moreover, E.H. was ably represented 

by counsel, both in the trial court and on appeal. We see no error. 

III. DISPOSITION

 The judgment is affirmed.
9

 _________________________ 

 REARDON, J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

RUVOLO, P.J. 

_________________________ 

STREETER, J.