Conservatorship of Barry S.

Filed 9/29/06 Conservatorship of Barry S. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

On November 20, 1998, the Shasta County Public Guardian filed a petition for appointment as conservator of the person of Barry S. (conservatee) under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) The petition alleged conservatee “is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder and unwilling or incapable of accepting treatment and care voluntarily“ and therefore “is unable to properly care for himself or his property.”

On December 16, 1998, the superior court entered an order appointing the public guardian as conservator of the person of conservatee for a period of one year. In the order, the court designated the least restricted and most appropriate placement to be a locked facility (IMD).

During each of the next seven years, the public guardian filed petitions for reappointment as conservator of the person of conservatee. The petitions were granted. Attached to the October 2005 petition was a report signed by two physicians indicating conservatee has “[n]o ability to cook and prepare an adequate diet,” “[w]ears clothing which is inappropriate to weather conditions,” is “[u]nable to realistically plan to obtain clothing,” “[c]an not [sic] formulate realistic plan to obtain shelter,” “[w]ill not stay voluntarily in a supervised open setting i.e., board and care home,” “does not have capacity to refuse or consent to medications related to his grave disability,” and “does not have capacity to refuse or consent to treatment related to his grave disability.”

On March 1, 2006, conservatee filed a petition for rehearing on two issues: (1) whether he is still “gravely disabled,” and (2) whether his placement is the least restrictive alternative. On April 4, 2006, the court conducted a hearing at which conservatee and a psychologist with Shasta County Mental Health Adult Systems testified. The court ruled defendant continued to be gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder and his placement at an IMD was the least restrictive placement. On April 18, 2006, the court entered an order denying conservatee’s petition for rehearing.

Conservatee appeals from the April 18, 2006 order, and counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal. Conservatee’s counsel advises us he is unable to find any issue to raise on appeal and, citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, he asks that we independently review the record to determine whether any arguable appellate issue exists. The proof of service indicates counsel provided conservatee with a copy of the appellate brief and, in a declaration, counsel states he advised conservatee of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from conservatee.

The issue of whether the Wende procedures apply to conservatorship appeals is currently pending before the California Supreme Court in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 710, review granted September 15, 2004, S126664.

Assuming (without deciding) that Wende procedures apply to conservatorship appeals, we have examined the entire record. We find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to conservatee.

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order) denying rehearing is affirmed.

ROBIE , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P.J.

MORRISON , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.