Opinion
A166630
10-06-2023
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SPR-093610)
MARKMAN, J. [*]
A.A. appeals from an order reappointing respondent Public Guardian of Sonoma County (Public Guardian) as conservator and imposing special disabilities on him pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 5350 et seq.). The Public Guardian subsequently filed a petition alleging it could no longer serve A.A. due to his history of assault and a recent felony charge for assaulting facility staff. Based on that unopposed petition, the probate court terminated the conservatorship and dismissed the action.
Probate Code section 1301 authorizes the appeal of an order granting letters of conservatorship.
Appointed counsel filed a brief setting forth the applicable facts and law and asking this court to conduct a review of the record pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). Counsel informed A.A. that he may file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues he wishes to call to the court's attention and that if no supplemental brief is filed, this court might dismiss the appeal as abandoned. A.A. has not filed a supplemental brief.
BACKGROUND
On August 15, 2022, the Public Guardian filed a petition for reappointment as conservator over A.A. The petition alleged that A.A. was still gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder and the conservatorship would terminate on September 17, 2022, absent reappointment. The petition also sought imposition of special disabilities that A.A. not have the right to refuse or consent to medical treatment related to his being gravely disabled, be disqualified from possession of a firearm or other deadly weapon, and not have the privilege of possessing a driver's license. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 5357, subds. (a), (d), (f).)
A.A. requested a jury trial on the question of whether he was gravely disabled. The Public Guardian called an expert witness, and A.A. testified on his own behalf.
On November 1, 2022, the jury found A.A. was presently gravely disabled. The probate court imposed special disabilities as requested. It also ordered that the least restrictive placement for A.A. at the time was an institution for mental disease.
On December 5, 2022, the Public Guardian filed a petition for termination of the conservatorship and dismissal of the action. It alleged: "[A.A.] has been charged with a felony for assaulting staff at the Sonoma
County Crisis Stabilization Unit, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCR-758202-1. Due to his history of assaulting people, particularly in in [sic] hospital facilities, and the pending assaultive criminal charges, Petitioner is unable to serve him." Counsel for A.A. had no objection. On December 14, 2022, the probate court terminated the conservatorship and dismissed the action.
DISCUSSION
This appeal is moot. (See Conservatorship of John L. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 131, 142, fn. 2 [moot where conservatorship ended during appellate process].) The probate court has terminated the conservatorship upon petition by the Public Guardian and dismissed the action. Appointed appellate counsel does not argue, nor does the record reflect, that there are circumstances warranting exercise of our discretion to decide an otherwise moot appeal. (Conservatorship of K.W. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1274, 1278, fn. 2 [exercising discretion where conservatorship had expired but subsequent petition for reappointment had been filed and granted].)
Even if there were, we would decline counsel's request to review the entire record here. Given that the conservatorship has been terminated and the action has been dismissed, this is not a situation where a "second look" at the record would help "to ensure that [the conservatee is] not inappropriately confined[.]" (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 556 (dis. opn. of George, C.J.).)
We have, however, reviewed the petition and order terminating the conservatorship and dismissing the action. We see no arguable issue. (See Welf. &Inst. Code, § 5350 [procedure for "terminating a conservatorship under this chapter shall be the same as that provided in Division 4 (commencing with Section 1400) of the Probate Code"]; Prob. Code, §§ 1861, subd. (a)(1) [petition for termination of conservatorship may be filed by conservator], 1863, subd. (f) [evidentiary hearing not required where conservator and conservatee both wish to terminate conservatorship and conservatorship is no longer least restrictive alternative for conservatee's protection].) A.A.'s counsel informed this court that he found no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal, filed a briefing setting out the applicable facts and law, advised A.A. that a Ben C. brief would be filed in this case, and informed A.A. of his right to file a supplemental brief and that this court "will likely dismiss his appeal as abandoned if he does not file a supplemental brief."
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: Stewart, P.J., Richman, J.
[*] Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.