Reported / Citable
Background
Sonoma County’s Public Guardian sought a one-year conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act for C.O., alleging that mental illness left her unable to provide for food, clothing, or shelter. C.O. received a written citation advising her of a jury-trial right. At a scheduling hearing, her public defender discussed that right with her on the record and asked whether she wanted a judge trial; C.O. answered yes.
After a court trial, the judge found C.O. gravely disabled, imposed specified legal disabilities, and ordered placement in a locked facility. C.O. argued on appeal that the court had not personally advised her about a jury and that neither she nor counsel validly waived one.
The Court’s Holding
The published portion of the opinion holds that an LPS conservatee need not personally deliver the formal jury waiver. Counsel may communicate the client’s waiver when the record shows the decision is the client’s and no statute requires a personal waiver. Here, C.O. had written notice, counsel expressly discussed jury and court trials with her, and she personally confirmed that she wanted a judge trial.
The trial judge nevertheless should have personally advised C.O. of the jury right. On this record, that omission did not invalidate the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. In the unpublished portions, the court also found sufficient evidence for grave disability and the special disabilities, and held that C.O.’s repeated absconding supported locked placement as the least restrictive effective option.
Key Takeaways
- LPS counsel may communicate a jury waiver made with the conservatee’s express consent.
- Trial courts should still personally advise proposed conservatees of the jury right on the record.
- Written notice, counsel’s questions, and the conservatee’s responses can collectively establish a valid waiver.
- Placement must be the least restrictive option capable of achieving treatment, assessed against the person’s actual history.
Why It Matters
Conservatorship proceedings affect fundamental liberty interests, so a clean record of advisements and choices matters. Judges and counsel should not rely on implication: they should identify the jury right, confirm consultation, and record the conservatee’s decision whenever feasible.
The decision also distinguishes a personal decision from a personally spoken legal formula. Counsel can convey the choice, but the record must show that the choice belongs to the client rather than being imposed over an objection.