Conservatorship of M.M. CA6

Filed 2/16/22 Conservatorship of M.M. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Conservatorship of the Person of M.M. H047439 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-19-MH039059)

MARY ANN WARREN, as Public Guardian, etc.,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

M.M.,

Objector and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION After a jury trial, appellant M.M. was found to be gravely disabled within the meaning of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.).1 The trial court appointed respondent Public Guardian for Santa Clara County as conservator of the person of appellant. On appeal, appellant contends that section 5350, subdivision (e)(4) of the LPS Act precluded him from relying on a “third-party assistance defense” at trial in violation of his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

He argues that the matter should be remanded for a new trial where he can present such a defense. While this appeal was pending, appellant’s one-year conservatorship expired. Although he acknowledges that his appeal is “technically moot,” appellant requests that this court nevertheless address the issues he raises on appeal. For reasons that we will explain, we will dismiss the appeal. II. BACKGROUND According to the record on appeal, in mid-2017, appellant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). He was separately charged with misdemeanor battery (id, §§ 242, 243, subd. (b)) and misdemeanor resisting an officer (id., § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The criminal proceedings were suspended after doubt was declared regarding appellant’s competency. The trial court subsequently found appellant incompetent to stand trial. In early 2018, appellant was sent to a state hospital for restoration of competency. Later that year, it was determined that appellant’s competency would not be restored in the near future. On March 18, 2019, the public guardian filed a petition for appointment of a conservator of the person of appellant based on him allegedly being gravely disabled (§ 5008, subd. (h)(1)(B). Appellant contested the petition, and a jury trial was scheduled. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that, “[a]s a result of a mental disorder,” appellant was (1) “presently mentally incompetent to stand trial respecting his criminal proceedings . . . ;” (2) “presently unable to understand the nature and purpose of the criminal proceedings taken against him and . . . presently unable to assist his counsel in the conduct of his criminal defense in a rational manner;” (3) “presently unlikely to regain mental competency for purposes of the criminal proceedings taken against him;” (4) “[t]he complaint, indictment, or information pending against [him] . . . charges a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another person;” and (5) “[t]here has been a finding of probable cause . . . and the complaint, information, or indictment has not