Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of D.P.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

October 31, 2019

CONSERVATORSHIP OF the Person and ESTATE OF D.P., Public Guardian of the County of Los Angeles, Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
D.P., Objector and Appellant.

         [REVIEW GRANTED BY CAL. SUPREME COURT]

         [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]]

         [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 513] APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Robert Harrison, Judge. Affirmed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ZE041308)

Page 795

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 796

         COUNSEL

         Christopher Lionel Haberman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

          No appearance for Petitioner and Respondent.

         OPINION

         KIM, J.

Page 797

          I. INTRODUCTION

         The Public Guardian of the County of Los Angeles (County) filed a petition under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, � 5000 et seq.)[1] for reappointment as the conservator of appellant D.P., alleging that he was gravely disabled as the result of a mental disorder. Following a trial at which the jury found D.P. to be gravely disabled, the trial court granted the petition and ordered reappointment of the County as D.P.’s conservator.

          On appeal from the reappointment order, D.P. contends, among other things, that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury on an element necessary to the gravely disabled finding. In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that the trial court properly instructed the jury using the applicable statutory definition of gravely disabled. In the unpublished portion this opinion, we address and reject D.P.’s other contentions on appeal. We therefore affirm the trial court’s reappointment order.

Page 798

          II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[**]

          III ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.