Conservatorship of Y.B. CA1/4

Filed 11/18/22 Conservatorship of Y.B. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Conservatorship of the Person of Y.B.

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF CONTRA A162550 COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. Petitioner and Respondent, No. MSP13-01485) v. Y.B.,

Objector and Appellant.

Y.B. appeals from the Contra Costa County Superior Court’s order reappointing the Public Guardian of Contra Costa County (Public Guardian) as her conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350 et seq.). Her counsel has submitted a brief in which he does not identify any arguable issues and asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel advised Y.B. of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the opening brief’s filing, but Y.B. has not done so. When a similar appellate brief is filed in a criminal appeal, we must conduct an independent review of the record to determine if it reveals any

1

arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442.) This duty does not extend to appeals from conservatorship proceedings. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 535.) Rather, upon the filing of an appellate brief that does not identify any arguable issues and the allowance of time for the appellant to file a supplemental brief, we may dismiss such an appeal on our own motion. (Id. at p. 544 & fn. 6.) We shall do so here. BACKGROUND In February 2021, the Public Guardian filed a petition seeking reappointment as Y.B.’s LPS conservator, alleging that Y.B. remained gravely disabled and unable to provide for her own basic needs as a result of a mental health disorder. The Public Guardian recommended the imposition of special disabilities that would deny Y.B. the right to refuse or consent to treatment related to her grave disability, the right to enter into contracts without the knowledge and consent of the conservator, and the privilege of possessing a driver’s license, and would disqualify her from purchasing or possessing firearms or other deadly weapons. Y.B., through her appointed trial counsel, objected to the reappointment and requested a bench trial. The court advised Y.B. of her right to a jury trial and accepted her waiver of that right. It also ordered the petition merged with the February 2020 petition for reappointment, which had not been heard yet because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the bench trial, Dr. Michael Levin, a psychiatrist employed by Contra Costa County, including to conduct grave disability evaluations for the county’s conservator’s office, testified as an expert on behalf of the Public Guardian. He said he had met with Y.B. “a number of times” dating back to 2014 and had interviewed her over Zoom for thirty minutes the day before he