Filed 7/19/17 Conservatorship of Lawrence P. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Lawrence P.

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
Lawrence P.,
Objector and Appellant.



A148668

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. P1500596)


Appellant Lawrence P. appealed after a jury found him for the second time to be gravely disabled under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). He argues appeal that expert testimony was wrongly admitted under the principles recently announced in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 673, 698-700 (Sanchez) and that the admission of hospital records was erroneous because they did not fall under a valid hearsay exception.
After briefing was complete and the court scheduled oral argument, respondent Public Guardian of Contra Costa County notified us that the trial court ordered Lawrence to be released after a different jury found that Lawrence is not currently gravely disabled. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which Lawrence opposes. In this abbreviated opinion permitted under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
Lawrence acknowledges that because his conservatorship has been terminated, his appeal is technically moot. (In re Krall (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 792, 794, fn. 2.) He contends, however, that we should exercise our discretion to consider the merits of the appeal because the issues presented are matters of general public interest. (E.g., Conservatorship of Joseph W. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 953, 960-961.) We disagree.
We do not consider the issues to be matters of general public interest. As for the first issue, Sanchez held that where an expert testifies as to case-specific, out-of-court statements to explain the basis for an opinion, the hearsay evidence must be properly admitted through an applicable hearsay exception. (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 684.) Lawrence argues at length that the trial court erred under Sanchez, but Sanchez does not apply here because the expert witness rendered his opinion based on information that was independently admitted, and jurors were given a jury instruction to this effect. True, Lawrence also argued in his opening brief that the underlying evidence (hospital records) was not properly admitted under a hearsay exception. In response, respondent went so far as to argue that Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008.2, which provides that the historical course of a person’s mental disorder shall be considered when it has a direct bearing on whether the person is currently gravely disabled, is a hearsay exception in proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. But neither Lawrence’s objection nor respondent’s response were raised below, meaning this is not the ideal procedural posture in which to address these arguments.
In sum, we decline to exercise our discretion to reach the merits of Lawrence’s appeal.
The appeal is dismissed as moot.

 

_________________________
Humes, P.J.


We concur:


_________________________
Margulies, J.


_________________________
Banke, J.











Public Guardian of Contra Costa County v. L.P. (A148668)