Opinion
C082348
09-28-2017
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of ROBERT C. BUTTE COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, as Conservator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. ROBERT C., Objector and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PR41723)
Robert C. challenges the appointment of a conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.), contending the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he was gravely disabled. Because the one-year LPS Act conservatorship has terminated by operation of law, we will dismiss the appeal as moot.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
Dr. Kimura, the inpatient psychiatrist and medical director at Butte County Behavioral Health, diagnosed Robert C. with schizophrenia. The trial court granted the appointment of a temporary LPS conservator on December 17, 2015. Robert C. had been brought into the psychiatric facility under section 5150, after he was found to be living in extremely unsanitary conditions. He was ingesting urine and feces, and exhibited threatening and assaultive behavior toward the emergency room staff. He denied having a mental illness and would only take his medications if they were administered to him.
On June 16, 2016, following a contested trial, a jury found Robert C. was gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder. The trial court placed him in a one-year conservatorship and imposed special disabilities, restricting him from having a driver's license, entering contracts, refusing medical treatment related to his grave disability, and possessing a firearm.
Robert C. filed a notice of appeal on June 21, 2016, but the case was not fully briefed until May 4, 2017. On June 16, 2017, the conservatorship terminated by operation of law. We requested supplemental briefing on whether the appeal had been rendered moot with the expiration of the conservatorship.
DISCUSSION
Robert C. contends there was insufficient evidence to support the finding he was gravely disabled and unable to feed, clothe, and shelter himself. He further contends his appeal is not moot because what constitutes substantial evidence is a matter of public interest that is likely to recur while evading review. Specifically, his "conservatorship and special legal disabilities are likely to be extended from year to year based on the same and very similar scanty evidence."
"As a general rule, an appellate court only decides actual controversies. It is not the function of the appellate court to render opinion ' " ' "upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or . . . declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it." ' " ' [Citation.] '[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. [Citation.]' " (People v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380.) An appellate court will dismiss an appeal as moot if events subsequent to the judgment or order appealed from prevent the appellate court from granting any effectual relief, and the appeal does not raise an issue of public interest that is likely to recur. (Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206, 227; Conservatorship of G.H. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1439.)
None of the cases cited by Robert C. claim insufficient evidence or find that such a claim is a matter of public interest likely to recur. (People v. Gibson (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1425, 1429 [whether retroactive provisions of Mentally Disordered Offender's Act violated ex post facto]; People v. Barrett (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1081, 1092, fn. 7 [right to a personal jury advisement in proceedings under § 6500]; Conservatorship of John L. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 131, 142, fn. 2 [proposed conservatee's due process right to be present at hearing]; Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1011, fn. 5 [applicability of exclusionary rule].) In contrast to the cases he cites, Robert C.'s appeal does not involve issues of public interest. Although he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his commitment, that issue requires assessment of the particular evidence supporting this particular conservatorship. (See, e.g., MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 215.) The evidence in any future proceedings will necessarily be different based upon Robert C.'s response to treatment and his condition and other circumstances at the time of the subsequent hearing. The issues raised are particular to this case and Robert C.; they do not concern fundamental jurisdiction or novel questions of unsettled law.
We understand that conservatorships such as this one may often elude appellate review due to their one-year expiration. However, that is a matter for the Legislature to consider, should it choose to do so. --------
Further, the reestablishment of an LPS conservatorship is not a continuation of earlier proceedings. The trial court cannot rely on earlier evidence or findings to establish a subsequent conservatorship. Rather, the proceeding to reestablish a conservatorship is a new and independent proceeding at which the conservator must establish the proposed conservatee remains presently gravely disabled. (§ 5350; Conservatorship of Roulet (1979) 23 Cal.3d 219, 235; Conservatorship of Diedre B. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1312.) That is, each subsequent establishment of an LPS conservatorship is independent of the LPS conservatorship that preceded it.
The circumstances can, and necessarily will, change, and the earlier determination is not a factor in subsequent decision-making. The appeal is moot.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Hull, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Mauro, J.