Conservatorship of H.M. CA2/1

Filed 2/13/26 Conservatorship of H.M. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re CONSERVATORSHIP OF B347882 H.M. (Los Angeles County PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF Super. Ct. No. 24NWMH00667) LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

H.M.,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert S. Harrison, Judge. Reversed. Rudy Kraft for Objector and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Laura Quiñonez, Assistant County Counsel and William C. Sias, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent. ____________________________

Following a court trial, the court found appellant H.M. gravely disabled under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.; LPS Act). The court appointed the Los Angeles County Public Guardian as H.M.’s conservator. On appeal, H.M. argues the trial court erred in failing to advise him of his right to a jury trial and failing to obtain a personal waiver of that right. Here, the only discussion of a jury trial before the court occurred between H.M. and his attorney while H.M was being assisted by an Arabic language interpreter when, in fact, H.M. needed an Armenian language interpreter. When the court trial later resumed, now with the assistance of an Armenian interpreter, at no time did the court advise H.M. of his right to a jury trial or obtain a waiver of that right. The record thus does not support that H.M. knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. We thus cannot conclude the failure to advise H.M. of his jury trial right in a language he understood was harmless. We reverse the conservatorship order.

BACKGROUND In November 2024, County Counsel filed a petition for appointment of a conservator over H.M. In support of the petition, a physician declared H.M. suffers from schizophrenia and was disorganized and delusional. On January 8, 2025, H.M. was present in court with his attorney and an Arabic language interpreter. H.M.’s counsel asked him, “[W]ould you agree to be on a conservatorship?” and H.M. responded, “I don’t want to.” His attorney then stated: “You can have either a court trial with a judge or a jury trial. Do you know what type of trial you would like?” H.M. responded, “Judge.” The court then stated: “[T]he court will waive the jury trial and we will set this matter for a court trial at your request.”