Conservatorship of A.G. CA1/1

Filed 7/18/24 Conservatorship of A.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

Conservatorship of the Person of A.G.

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF SONOMA COUNTY, Petitioner and Respondent, A169923 v. (Sonoma County A.G., Super. Ct. No. 24PR00008) Objector and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Following a court trial in February 2024, the trial court found objector and appellant A.G. to be gravely disabled under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). The court appointed the Sonoma County Public Guardian (public guardian) as A.G.’s conservator. On appeal, A.G. claims that reversal is required because the court failed to advise him of his right to a jury trial and obtain a personal waiver of that

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(2).

right. The public guardian did not file a respondent’s brief. We agree with A.G. that prejudicial error occurred. In January 2024, the public guardian petitioned to be appointed conservator over A.G., who was unhoused but currently in the hospital being treated for “a number of infections.” At a hearing on January 31, A.G.’s trial counsel was present but A.G. was not. After stating that A.G. had authorized a waiver of his appearance, counsel reported that she had “explained to him that he had an option to have a jury trial or a court trial.” She continued, “He is prepared to waive jury. He wants to have a judge trial, but he does not want to waive time.” There was no further discussion of the jury-trial right. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found “a factual basis to conclude that [A.G.] was advised of his rights and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of jury,” and it set the matter for a court trial. The court trial was held a week later before a different judge. A forensic psychiatrist testified that A.G. had “[m]ajor depressive disorder with psychotic features” and was gravely disabled as a result. A.G., who appeared by Zoom from the hospital, testified that he did not have any mental illnesses and wanted to be released from the hospital so he could return to living on “the streets.” At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court granted the public guardian’s petition and imposed a one-year conservatorship, which expires on February 7, 2025. A proposed conservatee has “the right to demand a court or jury trial on the issue of whether the person is gravely disabled.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350, subd. (d)(1).) The trial court is required to “inform the proposed conservatee of . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . the right . . . to have the matter of the establishment of the conservatorship tried by jury.” (Prob. Code, § 1828,