Opinion
A144087
07-02-2015
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of CYNTHIA M. SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, Petitioner and Respondent, v. CYNTHIA M., Objector and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. LPS-089635) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. --------
By order of November 21, 2013, a conservatorship was established for appellant Cynthia M. under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) On October 29, 2014, the San Mateo County Public Guardian petitioned to reestablish the conservatorship. After a court trial, requested by Cynthia, the probate court entered an order granting the petition on January 8, 2015. Cynthia has appealed the order reestablishing the conservatorship.
At the trial, Cynthia's treating psychiatrist for the past two and a half years testified that she suffers from schizoaffective disorder and described her symptoms. The psychiatrist offered his opinion that Cynthia is greatly disabled as a result of the symptoms of her mental disorder and provided the basis for his opinion. In particular, the psychiatrist was concerned that Cynthia was subject to disabling delusions that become particularly severe when she ceases to take prescribed medication. Yet because Cynthia does not believe she has a mental illness, she is likely to stop treatment if permitted to do so. Her untreated condition would rapidly render her unable to provide for her own food, clothing, and shelter.
Cynthia's counsel has filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and raising no arguable issues on appeal. Counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and In re Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529. In Ben C., the California Supreme Court concluded that Wende procedures are not mandated in an appeal of a judgment for conservatorship of the person under the LPS Act. The majority held: "If appointed counsel in a conservatorship appeal finds no arguable issues, . . . . counsel should (1) inform the court he or she has found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal; and (2) file a brief setting out the applicable facts and the law. Such a brief will provide an adequate basis for the court to dismiss the appeal on its own motion. Dismissal of an appeal raising no arguable issues is not inconsistent with article VI, section 14 of the California Constitution requiring that decisions determining causes 'be in writing with reasons stated.' " (Ben C., at p. 544, fns. omitted.) As Ben C. demonstrates, we are not required to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. Moreover, Cynthia M. has been informed of her right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record.
Counsel has filed a request for expedited appeal and calendar preference in order that this appeal may be heard without danger of becoming moot. In light of our present timely disposition of the appeal, we deny the request as moot.
The appeal is hereby dismissed.
/s/_________
Margulies, J.
We concur: /s/_________
Humes, P.J.
/s/_________
Banke, J.