Conservatorship of S.A. v. Public Guardian etc. CA2/6

Filed 10/25/22 Conservatorship of S.A. v. Public Guardian etc. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 of 2d Civ. No. B320532 S.A. (Super. Ct. No. 14PR-0145) (San Luis Obispo County)

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

S.A.,

Objector and Appellant.

Appellant S.A. appeals from an order continuing her conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) and reappointing the Public Guardian of San Luis Obispo County (Public Guardian) as conservator. Appellant’s appointed counsel found no arguable

issues on appeal and asks us to conduct a review in accordance with Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). At our invitation, appellant submitted a two-page, handwritten supplemental brief. Appellant asks for a retrial, citing her “more [r]estricted [p]lacement.” In Ben C., the California Supreme Court concluded that the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493], are not mandated in an appeal from a judgment for a conservatorship of the person under the LPS Act. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 543-544.) Applying Ben C., we decline to independently review the record for error but do address the issue raised by appellant. We conclude the issue lacks merit and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2021, the Public Guardian filed a petition seeking to find appellant gravely disabled and to be reappointed as her conservator. Appellant denied the petition’s allegations and waived her right to a jury trial. Dr. Rose Drago, a psychiatrist, testified that she has known appellant for approximately 20 years, has treated appellant and has seen appellant on an annual basis since appellant was conserved in 2014. Dr. Drago opined, based on her review of appellant’s records and her own observations, that appellant suffers from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Appellant is prescribed Haldol and Decanoate, which are psychotic medications, and oral Zyprexa, a mood stabilizer. Dr. Drago explained that appellant sometimes accepts the need for treatment, but at other times, appellant does not believe she has a mental illness or any need for medication.