-----------------NEW CASE ALERT------------------
In the matter of the conservatorship of Jose B, conservatee contends that the issue of holding a timely jury trial is an issue that is mandatory not directory meaning that if the court fails to meet this deadline, then the issue would not a harmless error and must be reversed. Public conservator contended that such matter was directory and did not warrant dismissal of the case. Appellate court opined that the trial court had made several errors, but the matter as a whole did not warrant dismissal as (1) conservatee failed to raise timely objection to counsel's delay of jury trial, (2) because the legislation does not explicitly state whether this issue is mandatory/directory; the appellate court deemed it directory, and (3) because this issue was the only matter raised on appeal and the fact pattern of the case indicated a need for LPS, appellate court decided that conservatorship would have been granted regardless of timely jury trial. Because of this reasoning, appellate court upheld trial court's decision affirming re-establishment of conservatorship of the person of Jose B.
Conservatorship of Jose B., 50 Cal. App. 5th 963
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven June 18, 2020,
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of JOSE B. PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, as Conservator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. JOSE B., Objector and Appellant.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Case Summary
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court's failure to commence trial within 10 days of appellant's jury trial demand did not support dismissal of a public guardian's petition for reappointment as appellant's conservator. The time limit in Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350, subd. (d)(2), is directory, not mandatory, because the legislature has not expressly provided for dismissal of the conservatorship petition if a trial is not held within 10 days. Further, given the lack of prejudice to appellant, who did not contest the jury's finding that he was gravely disabled, he was not denied due process; [2]-The trial court should state on the record its justification for continuing a trial beyond the statutory deadline. If a proposed conservatee contends he or she has been prejudiced by the delay, the proper remedy is to file a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. Appellant did not do that here.
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.
In the matter of the conservatorship of Jose B, conservatee contends that the issue of holding a timely jury trial is an issue that is mandatory not directory meaning that if the court fails to meet this deadline, then the issue would not a harmless error and must be reversed. Public conservator contended that such matter was directory and did not warrant dismissal of the case. Appellate court opined that the trial court had made several errors, but the matter as a whole did not warrant dismissal as (1) conservatee failed to raise timely objection to counsel's delay of jury trial, (2) because the legislation does not explicitly state whether this issue is mandatory/directory; the appellate court deemed it directory, and (3) because this issue was the only matter raised on appeal and the fact pattern of the case indicated a need for LPS, appellate court decided that conservatorship would have been granted regardless of timely jury trial. Because of this reasoning, appellate court upheld trial court's decision affirming re-establishment of conservatorship of the person of Jose B.
Conservatorship of Jose B., 50 Cal. App. 5th 963
Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven June 18, 2020,
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of JOSE B. PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, as Conservator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. JOSE B., Objector and Appellant.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Case Summary
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court's failure to commence trial within 10 days of appellant's jury trial demand did not support dismissal of a public guardian's petition for reappointment as appellant's conservator. The time limit in Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350, subd. (d)(2), is directory, not mandatory, because the legislature has not expressly provided for dismissal of the conservatorship petition if a trial is not held within 10 days. Further, given the lack of prejudice to appellant, who did not contest the jury's finding that he was gravely disabled, he was not denied due process; [2]-The trial court should state on the record its justification for continuing a trial beyond the statutory deadline. If a proposed conservatee contends he or she has been prejudiced by the delay, the proper remedy is to file a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. Appellant did not do that here.
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.