1

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

v.

DANIEL R.,

Objector and Appellant.

 A167485

 (Sonoma County

 Super. Ct. No. SPR-089657)

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 
2

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.)
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 imposition 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