Conservatorship of A.A.

Filed 10/11/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Conservatorship of the Person of A.A.

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF SONOMA COUNTY, Petitioner and Respondent, A164854 v. (Sonoma County A.A., Super. Ct. No. SPR-096327) Objector and Appellant.

Objector A.A. appeals from an order granting the petition of respondent Public Guardian of Sonoma County (Public Guardian) to establish a Murphy conservatorship over his person under provisions of the Lanterman-Petris- Short Act (LPS Act, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) applicable to criminal defendants found to be incompetent. Before A.A. was found to be incompetent, he pleaded guilty of the crime while he was represented by counsel, and the plea has not been challenged or set aside. He contends that he did not meet the definition of “gravely disabled” under the statute because no formal probable cause hearing was ever held. (Id., § 5008, subd. (h)(1)(B)(ii).) We disagree and affirm.

1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because only a narrow legal question is presented in this appeal, we briefly summarize the proceedings below. After A.A. drove drunk and killed another driver in January 2020, he was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)) and other offenses, along with various enhancements. A month after the incident, and while represented by counsel, he pleaded no contest to all charges. As part of the plea, he stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea based on a defense investigation. He also knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his rights, and his appointed counsel joined in the waiver. The trial court then found him guilty, and a hearing was scheduled for mid- March to receive a report from the probation department. Proceedings were suspended, however, when A.A.’s counsel declared a doubt as to A.A.’s competency. In April 2020, A.A. was found to be incompetent (Pen. Code, § 1370), and he was later committed to the state hospital in Napa. About a year after his commitment, the hospital’s interim medical director submitted a report to the court indicating that there was no substantial likelihood A.A. would be restored to competency in the foreseeable future. The report recommended that conservatorship proceedings be initiated. The Public Guardian sought what is known as a “Murphy conservatorship.” A “Murphy conservatorship is a renewable one-year civil commitment for criminal defendants who are otherwise incompetent to stand trial for a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another, and who do not have the prospect of a restoration of competency.” (Conservatorship of Christopher B. (2015)