California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of BRYAN S. PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF MENDOCINO COUNTY, as Conservator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
BRYAN S., Objector and Appellant.
CERTIFIED
FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]
Trial
Court: Superior Court of the County of Mendocino No.
SCUK-LPSQ-13-1685 Trial Judge: Hon. Jeanine B. Nadel
Counsel for Objector and Appellant: Rudy Kraft, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal
Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent: Katharine L. Elliott,
County Counsel, County of Mendocino Charlotte E. Scott,
Deputy Counsel, County of Mendocino
HUMES,
P.J.
Following
a court trial, the court found appellant Bryan S. to be
gravely disabled, appointed the Mendocino County Public
Guardian/Conservator (public guardian) as his conservator,
and imposed legal disabilities on him under the
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (hereafter the LPS Act or
Act).[1] On appeal, Bryan first argues that the
term of his resulting commitment must be shortened because
the trial court unlawfully continued the starting date of his
trial. We conclude that Bryan forfeited the argument by
failing to object below. Bryan also argues that he had a
right under the equal protection clause to refuse to testify
at his trial. We reject this argument in the published
portion of our opinion and affirm the order establishing a
conservatorship.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
Bryan
was arrested in October 2016 for resisting arrest after
sheriff's deputies responded to a woman's call that
he yelled at and chased her while she walked her dog. The
trial court determined that Bryan was not competent to stand
trial. A doctor recommended a treatment plan that included
psychotropic medication to restore Bryan to competency, and
he was taken to Napa State Hospital for treatment. After
treating Bryan for two years, the hospital reported that it
was unlikely he would soon regain competency, and it
recommended the initiation of conservatorship proceedings.
In
October 2018 the public guardian filed a conservatorship
petition alleging that Bryan was gravely disabled as a result
of a mental disorder. The petition was supported by the
report of a clinical psychologist who evaluated Bryan and
concluded that he was gravely disabled due to a mental
disorder (schizophrenia).
At the
first hearing on the petition on November 1, 2018, the trial
court appointed the public defender to represent Bryan and
granted the request for a temporary conservatorship. The
court then scheduled a further hearing on the request for a
permanent conservatorship for November 29.
At the
November 29 pretrial conference, Bryan's attorney stated
that Bryan wished to contest the permanent order and
requested a trial. The trial court suggested scheduling the
trial for January 28, 2019, and Bryan's attorney agreed
to the date without objection. The parties later stipulated
that Bryan would appear at trial by video-conference because
of concerns that transporting him from his facility in
Redding to trial in Ukiah would aggravate Bryan's health
issues.
A court
trial began as scheduled on January 28, 2019. County counsel
called Bryan as a witness with no objection from Bryan's
attorney. The clinical psychologist whose report was
submitted with the original conservatorship petition also
testified, as did Bryan's temporary conservator.
Following
testimony and closing arguments, the trial court concluded
that the public guardian had established beyond a reasonable
doubt that Bryan was gravely disabled as a result of a mental
disorder and was currently unable to provide for food,
clothing, or shelter. The court appointed the public ...