Conservatorship of v. Margaret, G026908.
Citation | 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 542,89 Cal.App.4th 675 |
Decision Date | 31 May 2001 |
Docket Number | No. G026908.,G026908. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | CONSERVATORSHIP OF the Person and Estate of MARGARET L. William A. Baker, Orange County Public Guardian, as Conservator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. Margaret L., Objector and Appellant. |
Cheryl A. Geyerman, San Diego, and Peggy A. O'Neill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.
Laurence M. Watson, County Counsel, Robert G. Overby and Laurie A. Shade, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
When appointed counsel in a conservatorship appeal fails to discover an arguable issue, must the Court of Appeal independently review the record upon a request per People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal.Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071?1 Yes.
A unanimous jury found Margaret L. gravely disabled, and the court extended her existing conservatorship.2 We appointed an attorney to represent her on appeal, but counsel requested our independent Wende review after failing to identify an arguable appellate issue.
The evidence at trial came from forensic psychologist Stephen Wells and Margaret L. testifying on her own behalf in opposition to the continuation of her conservatorship. Wells, who has been Orange County's Chief of Mental Health Consultation for 19 years, personally examined Margaret L. on five occasions, beginning in 1993, but primarily in 1996 when her current conservatorship commenced. He also saw her about a week before trial at Beverly Manor, a locked-down long-term psychiatric rehabilitation facility. In addition, he reviewed her extensive medical records and consulted with her treating physician and others involved in her care, including a deputy public guardian.
Although Margaret L., age 46, is a college graduate in accounting, she has had approximately 20 psychiatric hospitalizations. In Wells's opinion she suffers from "schizoaffective disorder." He described the condition as "a combination of schizophrenic-type symptoms and symptoms like mania and depression." Her symptoms include paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations.
The present conservatorship began when police found Margaret L. wandering in traffic in a delusional state. Wells described her condition after hospitalization at that time:
In more recent years, Margaret L. believed that she had cured herself of AIDS by smoking cigarettes and drinking her own urine, her deputy public guardian was having an affair with one of her former husbands, her former employer was the CIA and it wanted to obtain her medical records, President Clinton wanted to harm her, her adoption of a female Japanese child was being frustrated by someone, and she had been raped by 18 Mafia dons. She also (incorrectly) believed she had an identical twin—who was harassing her conservator—and that her friends had abandoned her because they thought she murdered children and was the Antichrist. In addition, she was receiving telepathic communications from her parents who had not been otherwise in touch with her for years. The Mafia, she thought, intended to kill her family. Wells opined that Margaret L. is gravely disabled and cannot provide for her own clothing, food, and shelter, and that she would not take her numerous medications if she were set free.
In her testimony Margaret L. admitted she has had a mental illness for some 25 years, and she described it in terms similar to those employed by Wells. She stated she was taking five different medications and would continue to do so if released. She wished to go to Fredericksburg, Virginia where her older brother lives: "I think he would be able to take care of me." She denied having delusions, but stated it was true that the Mafia was going to kill her family. Margaret L. stated that she can cook, shop for groceries, clean house and wash her clothes.
In Conservatorship of Besoyan (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 34, 38, 226 Cal.Rptr. 196, the court held, "Wende review is applicable where appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief on behalf of an LPS conservatee which raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous."3 The court based its rationale on two lines of authority.
The first was headed by Conservatorship of Roidet (1979) 23 Cal.3d 219, 224, 152 Cal.Rptr. 425, 590 P.2d 1: Roulet predated Wende and involved a different issue, whether civil or criminal procedures should be applied in the trial of conservatorships. Notwithstanding the Probate Code's adoption of civil rules (Prob.Code, § 1000), the court held the potential loss of freedom required that the finding of grave disability be made on a reasonable doubt standard by a unanimous jury.4 For reasons explained below, that part of the Besoyan foundation appears to be intact.
Besoyan's other rationale was that "... Wende review has been held applicable to certain civil proceedings dealing with the parent/child relationship, due to the fundamental nature of the rights involved...." There is no doubt that this analogous basis for the Besoyan holding has been eliminated. Our determination that Wende review was required in termination of parental rights cases based on an exhaustive examination of the law on the subject nationwide in In re Andrew B. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 825, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 604 was rejected by the Supreme Court in In re Sade C, supra, 13 Cal.4th 952, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.5
Although Sade C. recognized the existence of Besoyan in footnote 2, page 962, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716 ( ), it did not directly disapprove of Besoyan. (After all, the issue of Wende review of conservatorship appeals was not specifically involved in the case.) Footnote 21 in Sade C. arguably does that, though. It states in part, "Insofar as any decision of ours or of the Courts of Appeal expressly or impliedly extends Anders beyond what is described in the text, it is disapproved." (In re Sade C, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 993-994, fn. 21, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716; see also id., at pp. 983-984, fn. 13, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.) This is the rule described in the text and repeatedly stated in Sade C: "... (Id. at p. 985, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716; see Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 556, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539.) Sade C. goes on to add this: "A fortiori, they [Wende/Anders] should not be applied ... outside the sphere of criminal law." (In re Sade C, supra, at p. 985, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.)
Well, then, isn't that the end of the analysis? We do not believe so. Cases do not stand for questions not directly presented, or at least not directly answered, and Conservatorship of Roulet, supra, 23 Cal.3d 219, 152 Cal.Rptr. 425, 590 P.2d 1 is still good law, as is Lassiter v. Department of Social Sendees (1981) 452 U.S. 18, 26-27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 ( ).
A reasonable reading of Roulet is that a conservatorship proceeding, at least one that potentially implicates the loss of personal freedom of the proposed conservatee (compare Prob.Code, § 1801, subds. (a) [] and (b) ["conservator of the estate"]), is a criminal case for all practical purposes. Here is a pertinent part of the court's reasoning: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Beeson
... ... In addressing the issue in the context of a Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) proceeding, 32 the court, in Conservatorship of Roulet, 33 reached the same conclusion. The court held that "A consistent line of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and by this ... 34. Roulet, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pages 229-230, 152 Cal.Rptr. 425, 590 P.2d 1 ... 35. See, e.g., Conservatorship of Margaret L. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 675, 682, 107 Cal. Rptr.2d 542 ... 36. Conservatorship of Walker (1987) 196 Cal. App.3d 1082, 242 Cal.Rptr. 289 ... ...
-
People v. Smith
... ... 602] ( per curiam ) [purporting to extend Wende to paternity appeals]; Conservatorship of Besoyan (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 34, 36-38[, 226 Cal.Rptr. 196] ( per curiam ) [same as to conservatorship appeals]; Conservatorship of Susan T ... ( Conservatorship of Margaret ... ...
-
People v. Torres
... ... in criminal appeals, not civil appeals, but there have been exceptions including paternity appeals, termination of parental rights, conservatorship appeals, and juvenile delinquency appeals. 2 ( Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 962, fn. 2, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716, and cases cited ... 992-993, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771, 920 P.2d 716.) ... Subsequent Case Law ... In Conservatorship of Margaret L. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 675, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 542 ( Margaret L. ), the court concluded, over a strong dissent, that Wende review continued to be ... ...
-
In re Conservatorship of Ben C.
... ... 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 866 ... served by requiring a written opinion when the court does not actually decide any contested issues ... We disapprove Conservatorship of Margaret L. (2001) 39 Cal.App.4th 675, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 542 and Conservatorship of Besoyan (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 34, 226 Cal. Rptr. 196 insofar as they held that Anders/Wende procedures apply to appeals in conservatorship proceedings under the LPS Act ... III. DISPOSITION ... The ... ...