Conservatorship of S.I. CA2/6

Filed 1/18/22 Conservatorship of S.I. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 2d Civil No. B311249 of S.I. (Super. Ct. No. 17PR-0324) (San Luis Obispo County)

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, as Conservator, etc.

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

S.I.,

Objector and Appellant.

S.I. appeals from the trial court’s reappointment of the Public Guardian as his conservator pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 5000

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

et seq.) He contends the court erred when it: (1) denied his request for a jury trial, (2) failed to hold his conservatorship proceedings in a timely manner, (3) extended his conservatorship beyond one year, and (4) limited his right to contract. We modify the length of S.I.’s conservatorship, and otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 29, 2020, the Public Guardian petitioned the trial court for a one-year extension of S.I.’s conservatorship, which was set to terminate on December 13. A hearing on the petition was set for December 3. San Luis Obispo County officials failed to transport S.I. to the hearing, however, and said that it would not be possible for him to attend that day since they neglected to coordinate with the facility where S.I. lived. S.I.’s counsel then requested to continue the matter to December 17. He also relayed S.I.’s request to be personally present for all proceedings and for a jury trial. The court continued the matter to December 17. The December 17 hearing was held remotely. The trial court acknowledged S.I.’s requests for a jury trial and to be personally present at all proceedings, but said that it wanted to consider the health and safety risks associated with those requests before setting the matter for trial. Counsel objected that holding a hearing on S.I.’s requests violated his right to a jury trial. The court overruled the objection and found good cause for a continuance. It set the evidentiary hearing for January 15, 2021. At the conclusion of the January 15 hearing, the trial court determined that it could not set S.I.’s case for a jury trial any sooner than March due to the risks and protocols associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. S.I. asked if a court trial could occur sooner. Assured that it could, S.I. requested a court trial.