San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Craig W. (In re Craig W.)

Full title: Conservatorship of the Person of Craig W., SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 2012

D062323 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2012)

Opinion

D062323

11-09-2012

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

IRION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. MH107289)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Craig W. appeals an order denying his request for modification of an order establishing a conservatorship of his 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.), his appointed counsel has filed a brief, stating he is unable to find any arguable appellate issues and asking that we independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable appellate issues. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identifies as a possible, but not arguable, issue whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's denial of Craig's requests to terminate the conservatorship or to place him in a less restrictive setting. In response to our invitation, Craig has filed a supplemental brief that challenges certain of the factual statements set forth in psychiatrist Robert Zalewski-Zaragoza's written recommendation and in the investigative report; the supplemental brief does not, however, make any argument or challenge as to the trial court's order.

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. A similar analysis is equally applicable to the denial of a request to modify a prior conservatorship judgment or order. Under the rationale of Ben C., we decline to exercise our discretion to review the record for error. We have, however, reviewed the brief submitted by Craig's counsel, including his Anders issue.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

________________________

IRION, J.
WE CONCUR: ________________________

BENKE, Acting P.J.
________________________

MCDONALD, J.