Conservatorship of Lee C.
C081673
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- In 2014 Lee C. (L.C.) was charged with corporal injury to a cohabitant; the criminal court found him incompetent and committed him to a state hospital.
- After the hospital reported he was unlikely to be restored, defense counsel requested a preliminary hearing under Penal Code §1368.1; the court found probable cause and referred the case to the Shasta County Public Guardian to investigate a Murphy (LPS) conservatorship.
- The Public Guardian declined to file a conservatorship petition, citing (1) that the information was invalid because the preliminary hearing occurred while L.C. was incompetent, (2) that the charged felony did not involve death/great bodily harm/serious threat, and (3) lack of funding. County counsel filed a petition under court order but sought to dismiss it.
- The criminal court ordered the Public Guardian to file the petition and proceed to trial; when county counsel resisted, the court disqualified county counsel and appointed the district attorney to prosecute. The Public Guardian appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court lacked authority to order the Public Guardian to file and to compel prosecution, vacated the orders (including disqualification of county counsel), but held the Public Guardian’s discretionary refusal is reviewable for abuse of discretion and here was based on incorrect legal interpretations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's authority to compel Public Guardian to file a Murphy petition | Court may order filing and trial enforcement under its inherent powers (§128) | Public Guardian has statutory discretion; court may only order investigation, not filing | Court lacks authority to compel filing or force prosecution; orders to file and proceed vacated |
| Disqualification of county counsel for refusing to prosecute | Disqualification appropriate to enforce court orders and protect public safety | Disqualification unlawfully interferes with Public Guardian's discretion and client’s choice of counsel | Disqualification vacated because it rested on unlawful compulsion to file/prosecute |
| Reviewability of Public Guardian's decision not to file | N/A (People sought enforcement) | Public Guardian's decision is discretionary and generally not subject to mandamus to direct specific exercise | Decision is reviewable for abuse of discretion; court may correct legal error but not dictate outcome |
| Validity of the pending information and sufficiency of the charged felony for Murphy criteria | Information is valid for conservatorship purposes; Penal Code §273.5 facts can satisfy “great bodily harm/serious threat” | Preliminary hearing held while incompetent renders information invalid; §273.5 does not automatically qualify | Public Guardian abused discretion: the information was valid for conservatorship and the conduct (choking/dragging) could show serious threat; remand for lawful exercise of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Hofferber, 28 Cal.3d 161 (Cal. 1980) (constitutional requirement that conservatee represent a substantial danger to others for Murphy conservatorship)
- Kaplan v. Superior Court, 216 Cal.App.3d 1354 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (public guardian is designated investigator with discretion to initiate/prosecute LPS proceedings)
- People v. Karriker, 149 Cal.App.4th 763 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (court may order investigation but not compel filing of conservatorship petition; evaluate abuse of discretion)
- County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kennebrew), 222 Cal.App.4th 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (public guardian’s refusal may be overridden where its legal interpretation is erroneous; abuse-of-discretion review supports compulsion in that case)
- In re Conservatorship of Martha P., 117 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (voluntary dismissal rules under §581 apply to LPS conservatorships)
- Hale v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 221 (Cal. 1975) (preliminary hearing while incompetent does not per se violate due process; trial on such an information would require re‑hearing after restoration)
- People v. Duncan, 78 Cal.App.4th 765 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (preliminary hearing held while defendant incompetent can render information subject to dismissal if used to bring defendant to criminal trial)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1972) (due process considerations regarding competency and scope of proceedings that can be held while defendant is incompetent)
- People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc., 20 Cal.4th 1135 (Cal. 1999) (disqualification implicates a client’s right to chosen counsel)