Filed 11/19/18 Conservatorship of B.W. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

1. INTRODUCTION

After a court trial, appellant B.W. was found to be gravely disabled within the meaning of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). The court reappointed respondent Public Guardian for Santa Clara County as conservator of the person and estate of appellant. On appeal, appellant contends that the court committed several errors, and that the matter should be remanded for a new trial.

While the appeal was pending, appellant’s one-year conservatorship expired. In response to our request for supplemental briefing, the parties agree that the appeal is now moot, although appellant requests that this court nevertheless address each of the issues he raises on appeal. For reasons that we will explain, we will dismiss the appeal.

2. BACKGROUND

In July 2017, the public guardian filed a petition for reappointment as conservator of the person and estate of appellant. In the petition, the public guardian also sought to deny appellant (1) the privilege of possessing a driver’s license, (2) the right to refuse or consent to routine medical treatment unrelated to his grave disability, (3) the right to refuse or consent to psychiatric treatment and the administration of psychiatric medication, and (4) the right to enter into contracts, and to have appellant (5) disqualified from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon.

A hearing was held on August 17, 2017. Appellant did not attend the hearing. His appointed trial counsel appeared on his behalf. Counsel indicated that he had advised appellant of his rights, including the right to be present, and that counsel was waiving appellant’s appearance. Counsel stated, “[W]e’re requesting a court trial via video conference at Napa State Hospital.” Counsel expressly indicated that there was “a waiver of the right to a jury.”

The court trial was held on November 9, 2017. At the outset of the proceeding, the court stated that appellant “has requested that we have a court trial regarding reappointment. And so that’s why we’re here today.” The public guardian called two witnesses to testify: (1) a psychiatrist from Napa State Hospital, who was appellant’s attending psychiatrist and who testified as an expert in the field of psychiatry and regarding the issue of grave disability, and (2) appellant. When appellant was called to testify, counsel for the public guardian asked appellant, “I have a few questions that I would like to ask you. Is that okay?” Appellant responded, “Yes, sir. Of course.” Appellant called one witness to testify—a social worker who worked in appellant’s unit at Napa State Hospital. At the conclusion of evidence, the court stated that the public guardian had “carried its burden of proof,” that the public guardian had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant is gravely disabled, and that the court would “go ahead and grant the petition.”

On November 13, 2017, the trial court filed a written order reappointing the public guardian as conservator of the person and estate of appellant. The court also ordered, as requested in the public guardian’s petition, that appellant lose (1) the privilege of possessing a driver’s license, (2) the right to refuse or consent to routine medical treatment unrelated to his grave disability, (3) the right to refuse or consent to psychiatric treatment and the administration of psychiatric medication, and (4) the right to enter into contracts, and that appellant (5) be disqualified from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon. The court further ordered that the acts of the public guardian, after the expiration date of the previous conservatorship and to the date of the instant order, were approved and ratified. The court also ordered the issuance of letters of conservatorship. The letters of conservatorship state that they expire one year from September 15, 2017.

3. ANALYSIS

Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial because: (1) his trial counsel’s waiver of a jury was inadequate and therefore the court was not authorized to hold a court trial, (2) the court prejudicially erred by permitting the public guardian to call appellant as witness at trial, (3) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to appellant being called as a witness, (4) the court’s written order improperly imposes five statutory disabilities that were never orally announced by the court at the conclusion of the trial; and (5) there is no substantial evidence to support imposition of the five statutory disabilities. In response, the public guardian contends that none of appellant’s arguments has merit.

We do not reach the substance of appellant’s contentions. Appellant’s one-year conservatorship expired in September 2018. The parties agree that the appeal is now moot. “ ‘It is well settled that an appellate court will decide only actual controversies and that a live appeal may be rendered moot by events occurring after the notice of appeal was filed. We will not render opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions, or declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter at issue on appeal.’ [Citations.]” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc. v. City of Redondo Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 852, 866-867 (Building a Better Redondo, Inc.).) “A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court ‘can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214.) Here, appellant seeks reversal of the judgment reappointing the conservator and he seeks a new trial. The expiration of the challenged conservatorship, however, prevents us from granting appellant any effective relief.

Although appellant acknowledges that his appeal is moot, he requests that this court nevertheless address each of the issues he raises in his appeal.

“The general rule regarding mootness . . . is tempered by the court’s discretionary authority to decide moot issues. When an action involves a matter of continuing public interest that is likely to recur, a court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue, even if an event occurring during the pendency of the appeal normally would render the matter moot. [Citations.]” (Building a Better Redondo, Inc., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 867.)

We decline to exercise our discretion to decide the substance of appellant’s appeal. The issues of whether the jury waiver was adequate and whether appellant may be required to testify were never raised below. We are not inclined to consider these issues in the first instance here. As appellant acknowledges, the failure to raise an issue below generally results in the forfeiture of the issue on appeal. To avoid forfeiture in this case, appellant includes an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but that claim does not raise any novel issue of statewide importance. Similarly, whether substantial evidence supports the imposition of statutory disabilities is an issue particular to the facts of this case and does not involve a matter of public interest. We also believe that whether the trial court must orally rule regarding the imposition of each statutory disability, where (a) the public guardian’s petition includes a request for imposition of specified statutory disabilities, (b) the court orally grants the petition, and (c) the court makes a written order imposing the requested statutory disabilities, is not a matter of public interest that is likely to recur on a statewide basis. Accordingly, we will decline to exercise our discretion to decide the issues raised in this appeal.

4. DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

___________________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________

ELIA, ACTING P.J.

__________________________

MIHARA, J.

Conservatorship of B.W.; Ramoni v. B.W.

H045377