Bauman v. Christopher B. (In re Estate of Christopher B.)

• Decision Date: 28 September 2015
• Docket Number: C077467
• Citation: 240 Cal.App.4th 809,193 Cal.Rptr.3d 69
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: CONSERVATORSHIP OF the Person and Estate of CHRISTOPHER B. Maureen F. Bauman, as Public Guardian, etc., Petitioner and Appellant, v. Christopher B., Objector and Appellant.

240 Cal.App.4th 809

193 Cal.Rptr.3d 69

CONSERVATORSHIP OF the Person and Estate of CHRISTOPHER B.

Maureen F. Bauman, as Public Guardian, etc., Petitioner and Appellant

v.Christopher B., Objector and Appellant.

C077467

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed September 28, 2015

Gerald O. Carden, County Counsel, Valerie D. Flood, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Roger B. Coffman, David K. Huskey and Renju P. Jacob, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Appellant.

Timothy E. Warriner, Sacramento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

Opinion

BUTZ, J.

Objector Christopher B. appeals from the order of the probate court(following a bench trial) granting the petition of the Placer County Public Guardian(Public Guardian) to establish a conservatorship over the objector's person and estate.Christopher B. argues there is insufficient evidence of a pending indictment in underlying criminal proceedings, a jurisdictional prerequisite for his “Murphy conservatorship” under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.(Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 5000 et seq., 5008, subd. (h)(1)(B), 5361;Pen.Code, § 1370.)Named after the legislator who sponsored the 1974amendment that added a second definition of “gravely disabled” to the act(seeStats. 1974, ch. 1511, § 12, pp. 3321-3322), the Murphy conservatorship is a renewable one-year civil commitment for criminal defendants who are otherwise incompetent to stand trial for a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another, and who do not have the prospect of a restoration of competency.(People v. Karriker(2007)149 Cal.App.4th 763, 775, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 412;In re Polk(1999)71 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1237, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 389.)Christopher B. also contends the evidence does not support imposition of a restriction on his right to enter into contracts.The Public Guardian cross-appeals, contending the probate court imposed an incorrect termination date for the renewed conservatorship.We will vacate the order imposing the conservatorship with directions to dismiss the petition.This disposition moots the issue of the contractual restriction and the cross-appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Given the narrow focus of the legal underpinning for the Murphy conservatorship, we do not need to relate the evidence at trial.We draw some of the following facts from our opinion in Christopher B.'s appeal from the first effort to establish a conservatorship over his person and estate.(Conservatorship of Christopher B.(Mar. 6, 2014, C073478)[nonpub. opn.].)

In September 2003, Christopher B. entered a plea of no contest to stalking and possessing a billy club.The conduct was directed at his ex-wife's former husband.Christopher B. has subsequently denied any wrongdoing, attributing the plea to ineffective assistance of counsel in resolving a series of events he characterized as coincidental and unfortunate.

From 2005 through 2007, Christopher B. was found to be a mentally disordered offender (Pen.Code, § 2960 et seq. ) and placed in a state hospital.

He would not accept the diagnosis that he has a delusional disorder, and has refused voluntary treatment.By February 2008, Christopher B. had been under commitment for the full length of the prison term for his offense, and the state hospital released him.

Following his release, Christopher B. harassed his ex-wife and his stepdaughter.This resulted in a June 2009 complaint alleging criminal threats, stalking, and being a felon in possession of a gun (People v. Christopher B.(Super. Ct. Placer County, 2009, No. 62-090819)).After holding a hearing in July 2009, the criminal court found Christopher B. was not competent to stand trial; the criminal proceedings were suspended, and in September 2009the court ordered his transfer to the custody of a state hospital.At the conclusion of the three-year maximum period of commitment (Pen.Code, § 1370, subd. (c)(1) ), the state hospital found that Christopher B. could not be restored to competency because he refused voluntary treatment under his ongoing belief that he does not have any mental disorder.The state hospital recommended the institution of a Murphy conservatorship.

Given the imminent expiration of the commitment to the state hospital, and unable to file an information based on the 2009 complaint because of the stay on the criminal case, the district attorney obtained a grand jury indictment on the same charges in August 2012(People v. Carrington(2009)47 Cal.4th 145, 180-181, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 117, 211 P.3d 617[indictment is independent of complaint and information; thus prosecution may seek former even while latter stayed and even without dismissing latter] ) in order to satisfy the prerequisite for a Murphy conservatorship.(Welf. & Inst.Code, § 5008, subd. (h)(1)(B)(ii)[in order for incompetent criminal defendant to come within definition of “gravely disabled” for imposition of conservatorship, indictment or information must still be pending].)

In March 2013, the Public Guardian obtained an order establishing a Murphy conservatorship over Christopher B. and his estate.We reversed the order in March 2014 because of an absence of sufficient admissible evidence of his incompetence to stand trial in the criminal proceedings as of the time of the conservatorship proceedings.We also found that the trial court had failed to obtain Christopher B.'s express personal waiver of a hearing before it imposed a contractual disability on him pursuant to stipulation of his attorney.Our remittitur issued in May 2014.(Conservatorship of Christopher B., supra,C073478.)

This concludes the historical prologue.We come to the facts that are at the heart of the present appeal.

While the previous appeal was pending, the criminal court( Hon. Frances Kearney) convened with counsel in defendant's absence on June 19, 2013, for a status conference in case No. 62-090819.The trial court began, “[this] matter is on today for review.And it's my understanding that there has been established now a Murphy's conservatorship, and [defendant] is ... subject to further review now on the probate conservatorship calendar.So, in light of that, I believe the People are now moving to dismiss the charges ...; is that correct?”¹(Italics added.)The prosecutor replied, “We would so move based on the establishment of the Murphy's conservatorship.”The court responded, “That will be the Court's order.No further reviews.”The form minute order has a check next to the box for “Dismissed”(with the case number handwritten next to it), and “[Defendant] in Murphy's Conservatorship” is handwritten in a lower comment section.

On the following day, the criminal court reconvened.The trial court had defense counsel on the phone; the prosecutor was personally present.The trial court told defense counsel, “we needed to confirm with you ..., as you know, there's a Murphy's in this case.[¶] And yesterday inadvertently--well, I guess, what the People are asking me to clarify is that the complaint that was dismissed yesterday is directed solely to the original [2009] complaint and not to the subsequent [2012] indictment, because you do need to have [at least] an indictment in effect in order for the Murphy's to remain in effect.[¶] If we are all in agreement on that--I'll just clarify the underlying original complaint was dismissed but not the indictment....[¶] ... [W]hat's been represented to me is if you don't have that in effect, then the Murphy's goes away.So we don't want that to happen.[¶] So do you want me to just put it back on calendar next Wednesday?”This apparently being defense counsel's desire, the court set the matter for the following week.After hanging up the phone with defense counsel, the court then told the prosecutor, “She doesn't recall us trying to differentiate.So you should probably talk to her between now and then, because I don't think you guys want the Murphy's to go away.”In response to the prosecutor's request for clarification, the court stated, “To be clear: Pending the hearing next week, the Court has determined that there is still pending before the Court an indictment and the Murphy's is thus still in effect....But for right now, the underlying complaint is dismissed but not the indictment.”

At the hearing on June 26, 2013, the trial court described the focus of the hearing on June 19 as having involved “some discussion as to what happens with” the criminal case (No. 62-090819) in light of the conservatorship; “And the Court recited certain understandings for the record.And I believe the People said yes.”The trial court noted it had not yet received a transcript of the proceedings on June 19, but the court reporter had read her notes to the court's clerk, which the court shared in chambers with counsel.Somewhat at odds with the transcript we have quoted above, the trial court summarized it as, “The general idea, as to what was said, is that the Complaint is being dismissed.And [the] answer was ‘yes.’[¶] Subsequently, there was some concern expressed by both the People and the Defense ... as to whether or not that then affected the ... Indictment.[¶] And, in point of fact, you need that as a basis for the Murphy's Conservatorship....”

Defense counsel asserted, “As far as we're concerned, the case was dismissed last week....[¶] If the People are asking to reconsider that motion, I think that would be their motion.”The prosecutor responded, “the case was on for just a review to see whether the Murphy's Conservatorship had been established in the case.And it was....[¶] And then the inquiry was made whether we should dismiss the case, the Complaint, in that mat ter....[¶] I'm not aware that there was an Indictment [at issue] at that time....And I believe that the Complaint, that the original Complaint, could be dismissed.But the Indictment would not be included in that dismissal....[¶] ... I believe [that the transcript]...