Conservatorship of C.O. CA6

Filed 12/15/22 Conservatorship of C.O. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.O. H048150 __________________________________ (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-95-MH-032662) MARY ANN WARREN, as Public Guardian, etc.,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

C.O.,

Objector and Appellant.

Objector and appellant C.O.1 challenges an April 2020 order reappointing the Santa Clara County Public Guardian (public guardian) as his conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.2). He maintains the trial court erred by failing to personally advise him of his jury trial right and for failing to elicit a valid waiver of that right. This is the second appeal brought by C.O. raising claims related to jury trial advisement and waiver. In 2021, while this appeal was pending, this court rendered a

1 We refer to appellant by his initials to protect his privacy interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(2).) 2 Unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

decision on those issues in the context of a prior renewal of C.O.’s annual LPS conservatorship. (See Conservatorship of C.O. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894 (C.O.).) It is undisputed that this appeal is moot in light of the termination of the conservatorship at issue. In light of this court’s recent decision in C.O., we decline to exercise our discretion to decide the merits of C.O.’s claims. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND C.O., who suffers from mental illness, has been the subject of a number of LPS proceedings.3 An LPS conservatorship automatically terminates after one year. (§ 5361.) The annual LPS conservatorship that preceded the public guardian reappointment that is the subject of this appeal was set to expire in April 2020. Prior to the conservatorship’s expiration, the trial court sent a notice to reestablish conservatorship (notice) to C.O. at the assisted living facility at which he was residing. The notice stated that the one-year conservatorship would terminate in April 2020 and that the conservator (i.e., the public guardian) had until March 27, 2020, to petition the court for reappointment. Additionally, the notice stated, “Subject to a request for a court hearing by jury trial the judge may, on his or her own motion, accept or reject the conservator’s petition.” Also related to a jury trial, the notice stated that if the conservator petitioned to be reappointed, several persons (including the proposed conservatee’s attorney) “shall be notified.” The notice stated that there would be a court hearing or jury trial if requested by certain persons, such as the proposed conservatee’s attorney.