PUBLICLY CONSERVED
  • LPS CONSERVATORSHIPS FOR THE GRAVELY DISABLED
  • LPS CONSERVATORSHIP OVERVIEW
    • POWERS OF CONSERVATOR >
      • Placement Powers
      • Medication powers
  • YOUR DAY IN COURT
    • Conservatorship Legal Documents
  • Public Conservator
    • CONSERVATORSHIP INVESTIGATION REPORT
    • CAREER >
      • Continuing Education
      • Public Conservator County Numbers '16
    • LPS Conservatorship for Dependent Parents and Minors
  • LPS Conservatorship Case Law
    • Peremptory Challenges and Conservatorship of Gordon
    • Conservatorship of Sorenson privacy rights and LPS matters
    • Imposition of special disabilities- Conservatorship of Walker
    • Continuing Jurisdiction/Jury Instruction and Conservatorship of McKeown
    • Hearsay and conservatorship of Manton
    • Conservatorship of the Person of S.A.
    • In re Ben C- Wende Brief no issue writ
    • Conservatorship of Roulet- burden of proof
    • Special disabilities and due process- Conservatorship of K.G and Donna H.
    • Conservatorship of Davis and Third party assistance
    • Marsden hearings/ due process Conservatorship of David
    • Conservatorship of Torres and admissibility
    • Jury Instruction and Conservatorship of Law
    • Conservatorship of George H- jury instruction
    • Public Conservator's Exclusive Power to Initiate LPS Conservatorship Kaplan v. Superior Court
    • Constitutionality of LPS conservatorship- Conservatorship of Delay
    • Investigation report- Conservatorship of Ivey
    • Conservatorship of Jesse G
    • Grave Disability Standard and Jury trial notice Conservatorship of Benvenuto
    • Conservatorship of Kennebrew vs Conservatorship of Karriker
    • Conservatorship of Hofferber- criminal incompetence and LPS
    • "Discretionary abuse" Conservatorship of G.H.
    • Conservatorship of Smith and strange behaviour
    • Jury Trials- ​Conservatorship of Jose B
    • Conservatorship of Baber and Double jeopardy and third party evidence >
      • WIP- Conservatorship of Tedesco
      • Conservatorship of Symington (1989)
      • Effective Counsel
      • Faretta and Marsden
      • Exceptions: Third Party Evidence
      • Present Grave Disability
      • Exclusionary Rule WIP
      • Fifth Amendment Rights
  • New Updates
  • Harm Reduction
    • Needle Exchange Programs
    • Safe Consumption Sites
    • Safer Injection Drug Use
    • Narcan
    • Syringe Services Programs in SoCal
  • CWS/CMS
    • CWS/CMS User Interface
    • Case Plan

Effective counsel

2/21/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
Arguing ineffective counsel and substituted counsel

The courts have a safeguard for defendants who believe that their counsel did not provide them with proper representation, the right to effective counsel and the right to dismiss them. In the matter of LPS conservatorships, the conservatees have the right to the former but it becomes a bit tricky when it comes to dismissing counsel.


"The Supreme Court has held that part of the right to counsel is a right to effective assistance of counsel.  Proving that their lawyer was ineffective at trial is a way for convicts to get their convictions overturned, and therefore ineffective assistance is a common heabus corpus claim.  To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1) that their trial lawyer's performance fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness" and (2) "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). "

In the matter of LPS conservatees "like all lawyers, the court appointed attorney is obligated to keep her client fully informed about the proceedings at hand, to advise the client of his rights, and to vigorously advocate on his behalf. (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 6068, subd. (c); Conservatorship of David L. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 701, 710

[a proposed LPS conservatee has a statutory right to effective assistance of counsel]; Conservatorship of Benvenuto (J986) 180 Cal.App.3d 1030, 1037.

​["Implicit in the mandatory appointment of counsel is the duty of counsel to perform in an effective and professional manner."]. 


This a common issue where the conservatee may argue this matter in a writ of habeas corpus hearing. The conservatee may argue that their counsel failed to provide them with all of the information necessary to help them understand the legal proceedings or that their counsel did not advocate for their desires strongly enough. At prima facie this may seem true as counsel if often overwhelmed and cannot talk the conservatee through the entire proceeding or do a comprehensive read over of the conservatee's case file. However, when closely reviewed by the court this argument often fails as the court may find that 

Frequently the court will find that "[the conservatee's] complaints [do] not demonstrate that counsel was performing inadequately or that denial of [the] motion would substantially impair [the conservatee's] right to assistance of counsel." 

The court states that in order to find counsel ineffective, the conservatee must demonstrate that counsel made mistakes that prejudiced the conservatee's case through legal evidence and or made legal procedural errors that were serious in nature. The conservatee must prove by "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." The second half, that the outcome would have been different should those errors not been made. This is a very difficult matter to prove as it kind of involves telling the future. Many judges may find that legal errors were made but still dismiss the matter citing that the outcome would have been same. This is also a case where the conservatee will want a judge that really hears the matters and does not rubber stamp the county's decisions. 


The conservatee may not simply preserve their claim by "including in the Marsden argument specific complaints about an attorney's performance, i.e., failure to investigate exonerating information or witnesses, failure to meet and confer with defendant, and refusal to prevent a particular defense. 
arbitrary, or capricious". In other words the conservatee may not simply say that their counsel did not do what they wanted, did not file a motion, or set a hearing pursuant to the conservatee's wishes.

I address this matter because there are many conservatees who will try and use this argument as a mean of getting off of conservatorship. Even though it is a thoughtful gesture, the conservatee will most likely not win their appeal based on this argument alone.





0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Juvenile Dependency and
    LPS Conservatorship
     

    Informal entries about both subjects. Case law, updates in legislature, common sense information, and more....

    Past Entries

    December 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018

    Questions or need more information?

Enter

Juvenile Dependency Court 
​
2851 Meadow Lark Drive  Dpt 10

San Diego, California 92123
Phone: (858) 634-1600


San Diego Central Courthouse
1100 Union St
San Diego, California 92101 
Phone: (619) 844-2700



Office of the Public Conservator
5560 Overland Ave Ste 130
San Diego, California 92123
Phone: (858) 694-3500 ext 2
© 2017 LPS Conserved   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • LPS CONSERVATORSHIPS FOR THE GRAVELY DISABLED
  • LPS CONSERVATORSHIP OVERVIEW
    • POWERS OF CONSERVATOR >
      • Placement Powers
      • Medication powers
  • YOUR DAY IN COURT
    • Conservatorship Legal Documents
  • Public Conservator
    • CONSERVATORSHIP INVESTIGATION REPORT
    • CAREER >
      • Continuing Education
      • Public Conservator County Numbers '16
    • LPS Conservatorship for Dependent Parents and Minors
  • LPS Conservatorship Case Law
    • Peremptory Challenges and Conservatorship of Gordon
    • Conservatorship of Sorenson privacy rights and LPS matters
    • Imposition of special disabilities- Conservatorship of Walker
    • Continuing Jurisdiction/Jury Instruction and Conservatorship of McKeown
    • Hearsay and conservatorship of Manton
    • Conservatorship of the Person of S.A.
    • In re Ben C- Wende Brief no issue writ
    • Conservatorship of Roulet- burden of proof
    • Special disabilities and due process- Conservatorship of K.G and Donna H.
    • Conservatorship of Davis and Third party assistance
    • Marsden hearings/ due process Conservatorship of David
    • Conservatorship of Torres and admissibility
    • Jury Instruction and Conservatorship of Law
    • Conservatorship of George H- jury instruction
    • Public Conservator's Exclusive Power to Initiate LPS Conservatorship Kaplan v. Superior Court
    • Constitutionality of LPS conservatorship- Conservatorship of Delay
    • Investigation report- Conservatorship of Ivey
    • Conservatorship of Jesse G
    • Grave Disability Standard and Jury trial notice Conservatorship of Benvenuto
    • Conservatorship of Kennebrew vs Conservatorship of Karriker
    • Conservatorship of Hofferber- criminal incompetence and LPS
    • "Discretionary abuse" Conservatorship of G.H.
    • Conservatorship of Smith and strange behaviour
    • Jury Trials- ​Conservatorship of Jose B
    • Conservatorship of Baber and Double jeopardy and third party evidence >
      • WIP- Conservatorship of Tedesco
      • Conservatorship of Symington (1989)
      • Effective Counsel
      • Faretta and Marsden
      • Exceptions: Third Party Evidence
      • Present Grave Disability
      • Exclusionary Rule WIP
      • Fifth Amendment Rights
  • New Updates
  • Harm Reduction
    • Needle Exchange Programs
    • Safe Consumption Sites
    • Safer Injection Drug Use
    • Narcan
    • Syringe Services Programs in SoCal
  • CWS/CMS
    • CWS/CMS User Interface
    • Case Plan