1

Filed 10/5/23 Conservat orship 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered 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

D aniel R.

SONOMA COUNTY PUBLIC

CONSERVATOR

, Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

D ANIEL R.,

Objector and Appellant. A167485

(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SPR

- 089657)

D aniel 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 that2

D aniel 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 th e 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

tria l. ( 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.)3

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 impositio n of

disabilities was supported by substantial evidence, as the imposition was

based on the testimony presented to the trial court alone.4 _________________________ 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