Conservatorship of M.M.

California Court of Appeal Aug 29, 2019 No. B293676Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the time limitations for commencing a jury trial under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act are directory rather than mandatory, and that the appellant forfeited his claim of error by requesting or consenting to the trial continuances.

Issues

Whether the time limitations for commencing a jury trial under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350 are mandatory or directory.
Whether the appellant forfeited his right to challenge the trial delay by requesting or consenting to continuances.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the time limitations set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350, subdivision (d) are not mandatory, but directory.”

“M.M. has forfeited any claim of error. M.M. never once complained to the trial court that his speedy trial rights were violated.”

“M.M. may not seek an appellate remedy for a trial that was scheduled with his consent to accommodate his counsel.”

Filed 8/29/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

Conservatorship of the Person B293676 and Estate of M.M. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC Super. Ct. No. ZE042882) GUARDIAN, as Conservator, etc.,

Petitioner and Respondent,

M.M.,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert S. Harrison, Judge. Affirmed.

Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Rosanne Wong, Assistant County Counsel, and William C. Sias, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

**********

M.M. appeals the appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) after a jury found him to be gravely disabled due to a mental disorder. He does not challenge the jury’s verdict or claim any error in the trial proceedings that led to his conservatorship. His only claim on appeal is the trial court denied his right to begin a jury trial within 25 days of his jury trial demand. Instead, his trial began 61 days after his demand. He asks us to order his conservatorship expires 36 days earlier than the date the trial court ordered (61 -- 25 = 36), a remedy for which he provides no authority in the law. M.M. has forfeited the contention because for the most part the delay in beginning trial was due to his own counsel’s requests for a confidential expert report and to continue the trial to accommodate counsel’s schedule. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 26, 2018, the Los Angeles County Office of the Public Guardian filed a petition for the appointment of a conservator of the person and estate for M.M. Two doctors declared in support of the petition that M.M. had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and psychotic disorders, was unwilling to accept voluntary treatment, and a conservatorship was required because M.M is unable and unwilling to provide for his personal needs for food, clothing, and shelter. M.M. had previously been under a conservatorship due to his mental health issues. This time, M.M. had been admitted to the hospital after he lost consciousness on a bus. He had a history of diabetes and high blood pressure. M.M. denied he has these conditions and refused medical treatment, even though his blood pressure was “dangerously high.” M.M. denied any mental illness, claiming his identity had been stolen. He refused psychotropic medications and refused to speak with the psychiatric treatment team. He had only vague

Conservatorship of M.M.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

STRATTON, J.

WILEY, J.

AI Brief