Filed 7/24/17 Conservatorship of R.G. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of R.G.
SOLANO COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN,
Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
R.G.,
Objector and Appellant.
A149905

(Solano County
Super. Ct. No. FPR042239)


A jury found R.G. to be gravely disabled due to a mental disorder and the court entered judgment renewing a previously imposed conservatorship of R.G.’s person and estate under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS). (Prob. Code, § 5000 et seq.) R.G. appeals, with the assistance of appointed counsel.
The Solano County Public Guardian moves to dismiss the appeal as moot, noting that the challenged conservatorship had a one-year term that terminated months ago, on March 6, 2017. R.G. concedes the appeal is moot but urges us to deny dismissal to address a recurring issue that may evade review.
The appellate process often takes longer than the one-year LPS conservatorship term, making it appropriate to address moot appeals if they present issues of continuing public interest. (E.g., Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1005, 1011, fn. 5.) No such issues are presented here.
The only issue raised on appeal is the contention that the court erred in proceeding with trial despite R.G.’s delayed transportation to the courthouse, resulting in his 80-minute absence from a two-day trial. The reason for R.G.’s absence—for which he was not responsible—was explained to the jury, and upon his arrival a recess was taken, providing an opportunity for R.G. and his attorney to confer. Before R.G. arrived, the court gave its preliminary jury instructions, counsel made their opening statements, and counsel for the public guardian conducted direct examination of her expert psychologist. R.G. was present for cross-examination, redirect and recross-examination of the expert. R.G. contends his appeal raises the important and recurring issue of whether a proposed conservatee is entitled to be present at trial. That issue is not in dispute. “The proposed conservatee shall be produced at the hearing” except in specially-stated circumstances. (Prob. Code, § 1825, subd. (a).) In dispute is a narrow question particular to this case: Did the trial court err in proceeding when the proposed conservatee’s arrival was inadvertently delayed? There is no indication that such delays are common, or that courts routinely deny continuances when transportation delays occur. No recurring issues of public interest are presented.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.


Pollak, J.

We concur:

McGuiness, P.J.
Jenkins, J.