Conservatorship of Charles S.
Filed 1/6/10 Conservatorship of Charles S. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Conservatorship of the Person of CHARLES S. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Petitioner and Respondent, v. CHARLES S., Objector and Appellant. | D055665 (Super. Ct. No. MH102645) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John S. Meyer, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Charles S. suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. He has had many psychiatric hospitalizations and was subject to six conservatorships in the 10 years preceding July 2009. In June 2009 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, through the office of the public conservator, filed a petition to reestablish the conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code,
5000 et seq.). A jury found Charles "presently gravely disabled due to a mental disorder." The court entered a judgment reestablishing the conservatorship. Charles appeals.
Citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), and Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.), Charles's appointed counsel asks that we independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable appellate issues. Pursuant to Anders, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, whether substantial evidence supports the finding that Charles is gravely disabled and whether the jury instructions were improper because there was a reasonable likelihood the jury misapplied the instructions.
In Ben C., the California Supreme Court concluded that Wende and Anders procedures are not mandated in an appeal of a judgment for a conservatorship of the person under the LPS Act. We decline to exercise our discretion to review the record for error. We have reviewed the brief submitted by Charles's appointed counsel, including the possible issues. We have given Charles the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. He has not done so. Competent counsel has represented him in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
