Conservatorship of the Person of Amanda B. San Diego Cnty. Health Human Serv. Agency v. Amanda B.

Full title: Conservatorship of the Person of AMANDA B. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 2, 2011

D059427 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2011)

Opinion

D059427

08-02-2011

Conservatorship of the Person of AMANDA B. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Petitioner and Respondent, v. AMANDA B., Objector and Appellant.

HUFFMAN

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. MH104193)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roger W. Krauel, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Amanda B. appeals the judgment reestablishing a conservatorship of her person under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). Citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), and Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), Amanda's appointed counsel asks that we independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable appellate issues. Pursuant to Anders, counsel lists, as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the procedures used to reestablish the conservatorship conform to the requisites of due process; (2) whether the evidence is legally sufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding that Amanda is gravely disabled; and (3) whether the court properly instructed the jury on all issues, particularly with respect to Amanda's ability to care for herself with the aid of family and friends.

In Ben C, the California Supreme Court concluded that Wende and Anders procedures are not mandated in an appeal of a judgment for a conservatorship of the person under the LPS Act. We decline to exercise our discretion to review the record for error. We have reviewed the brief submitted by Amanda's appointed counsel, including the possible issues. We have given Amanda the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. She has not done so. Competent counsel has represented her in this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:

McDONALD, J.

O'ROURKE, J.