Conservatorship of G.B. CA2/6

Filed 2/19/25 Conservatorship of G.B. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

Conservatorship of the Person of 2d Civ. No. B336971 G.B. (Super. Ct. No. 22PR-0440) (San Luis Obispo County)

Public Guardian of San Luis Obispo County,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

G.B.,

Objector and Appellant.

G.B. appeals after the trial court, following a bench trial, reappointed the Public Guardian of San Luis Obispo County (Public Guardian) as his conservator under the Lanterman- Petris-Short Act (LPS). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5350, 5358, 5361.) Appellant contends reversal is necessary because the trial court failed to properly advise him of his jury trial right and to obtain a

personal waiver of that right pursuant to Probate Code section 1828 and Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378 (Heather W.). We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2023, following a jury trial that ended in March 2023, the court appointed the Public Guardian as appellant’s LPS conservator. On December 12, 2023, the Public Guardian filed a petition to be reappointed as appellant’s LPS conservator. That day, appellant was personally served with a citation for reappointment that advised: “[Y]ou have the right to a jury trial upon this matter if you so desire.” At a January 11, 2024 court date, appellant’s counsel indicated appellant “has expressed a preference for a court trial.” After a brief scheduling discussion, the court stated: “We will just expect to see everyone on February 15th at ten o’clock for the court trial.” Counsel for the Public Guardian then asked: “Can we obtain a jury trial waiver just while we are here this morning?” The following exchange transpired: “The Court: Yes. [Appellant’s counsel]? “[Appellant’s Counsel]: [Appellant], you and I discussed whether or not you would prefer a trial in front of the judge or a trial to be heard by the jury, and you told me that you preferred a judge trial. Is that still your wish? “[Appellant]: Yes. “[Appellant’s Counsel]: And you understand the difference between the two; don’t you? “[Appellant]: Yes. “[Appellant’s Counsel]: Okay. “The Court: Thank you, [appellant’s counsel]. “[Appellant’s Counsel]: Thank you.