Conservatorship of the Person of Patricia G. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082420 · 2024-02-07 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. MH119966
Trial judge: David M. Gill
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: other
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:19Z · confidence high

The trial court accepted a waiver of the right to a jury trial in a conservatorship proceeding, relying on a prior waiver by counsel and a subsequent on-the-record confirmation by the conservatee. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the waiver was valid because counsel’s initial waiver was presumed adequate and the later colloquy served only to confirm that prior decision.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Validity of the waiver of the right to a jury trial “In accordance with that presumption, we must conclude that counsel adequately advised Patricia G. of her right to a jury trial before entering a waiver on her behalf.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court correctly applied the presumption of effective assistance of counsel to the waiver made by appointed counsel, noting that the appellant raised no ineffective assistance claim. By treating the subsequent on-the-record colloquy as a confirmation of the prior valid waiver rather than a standalone waiver requiring specific criminal-style advisements, the court resolved the due process issue without needing to reconcile conflicting appellate authority on whether a personal on-the-record waiver is strictly required in conservatorships.

Authorities

relied: People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151 — The court acknowledged this case sets 'guiding standards' for oral waivers in criminal cases but declined to apply its specific advisement requirements to the conservatorship context, distinguishing the procedural posture.
relied: Conservatorship of John L. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 131 — An attorney may make binding representations for their client during a conservatorship proceeding, including waiving the right to a jury trial.
relied: People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226 — Courts presume that counsel rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment in making significant trial decisions in the absence of an ineffective assistance claim.
relied: Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378 — The court cited this case as part of a split in authority regarding whether due process requires a personal on-the-record waiver of a jury trial in conservatorships, distinguishing it on the facts that the conservatee there never received notice of the right.
relied: Conservatorship of C.O. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894 — The court cited this case as part of a split in authority regarding whether due process requires a personal on-the-record waiver of a jury trial in conservatorships, distinguishing it on the facts that the conservatee there never demanded a jury trial.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the presumption of effective assistance of counsel to validate the waiver made by appointed counsel, thereby avoiding the need to resolve the conflict between Heather W. and Conservatorship of C.O. regarding the necessity of a personal on-the-record waiver. The court’s distinction of the prior cases based on the specific facts—namely that the conservatee here had demanded a jury and then waived it through counsel—provides a logical and legally supported basis for affirming the judgment.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court accepted a waiver of Patricia G.'s right to a jury trial in an LPS conservatorship proceeding—first entered by her counsel at a status conference and then confirmed by Patricia G. personally in an on-the-record colloquy—and tried the conservatorship petition to the bench. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that counsel's waiver was presumptively valid absent any ineffective assistance claim and that the later colloquy, under the totality of the circumstances, confirmed a knowing and voluntary waiver without the court needing to decide whether Sivongxxay's criminal-case advisements apply to conservatorships.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Acceptance of counsel's June 14 waiver of the conservatee's right to a jury trial, withdrawing her earlier jury demand “This waiver would ordinarily be sufficient, as an attorney may make binding representations for their client during a conservatorship proceeding.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court relied on Conservatorship of John L. for counsel's authority to make binding representations and on Prieto's presumption of adequate assistance because no ineffective-assistance claim was raised. John L. concerned waiver of presence and submission on the report rather than jury waiver, and Heather W. distinguished it on that basis, so extending it to a jury waiver is a defensible but not fully explained step; because the court did not rest the result on counsel's waiver alone, the reasoning holds.
Acceptance of Patricia G.'s personal on-the-record jury waiver on June 20 without the full set of Sivongxxay advisements “The ensuing colloquy on June 20, under the totality of the circumstances, can only be reasonably interpreted as confirmation of the waiver that Patricia G. had already made knowingly, voluntarily, and with the advice of her counsel.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Sivongxxay's advisements are expressly advisory and even in criminal cases a waiver is judged on the totality of the circumstances. Here the conservatee was told she had a right to a jury of 12, that the judge would decide instead, and she affirmed the decision was her own and considered; combined with a prior jury demand and counsel's earlier waiver, the record supports a knowing and voluntary waiver even if Heather W.'s personal-waiver requirement applies.

Authorities

relied: People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151 — Provides advisory guidance for jury-trial waiver colloquies in criminal cases; validity of a waiver is judged under the totality of the circumstances.
relied: Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378 — Held that an LPS conservatee must personally waive the right to a jury trial on the record; distinguished here because Heather W. was never advised of the right.
relied: Conservatorship of C.O. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894 — Held that due process does not require a personal on-the-record jury waiver in conservatorship proceedings; distinguished because C.O. never demanded a jury.
relied: Conservatorship of John L. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 131 — Counsel may make binding representations on a proposed conservatee's behalf in LPS proceedings, and the court may rely on them.
relied: People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226 — Absent a showing to the contrary, counsel is presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment in significant trial decisions.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result by treating the June 20 colloquy as confirmation of a knowing and voluntary waiver already made with counsel's advice, and the colloquy on its face advised the conservatee of the core right she was giving up. It avoided the Heather W./C.O. split and did not explain why John L.'s holding on counsel's representations extends to jury waivers, nor did it articulate a standard of review, leaving gaps in an otherwise sound analysis.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 2/7/24 Conservatorship of the Person of Patricia G. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Conservatorship of the Person of Patricia G.

S.D. COUNTY HEALTH AND D082420 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Petitioner and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MH119966)

v. PATRICIA G., Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. Claudia Silva, County Counsel, and Raquel Young, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent. Patricia G., a conservatee under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 5350, appeals her conservatorship on the grounds that the waiver of her right to a jury trial was not knowing and voluntary because the two oral waivers she provided, after her counsel already entered a waiver on her behalf, were given without each of the advisements recommended for use in criminal cases. This, she contends, violates her rights to due process. On the particular facts of this case, we disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Given the nature of this appeal, a lengthy recitation of the undisputed facts underlying the conservatorship is unnecessary. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a section 5350 petition for conservatorship in May 2023. Patricia G. initially demanded a jury trial. But at a subsequent status conference hearing a few weeks later, her appointed counsel indicated his client was waiving her right to a jury. Patricia G. was not present in the courtroom when her counsel made this representation, so roughly one week later counsel asked the court to personally confirm the waiver with her client on the record. The following discussion occurred:

“The Court: All right. Counsel, do you agree there’s been an effective waiver of trial by jury? . . . .

[Counsel for Agency]: Yes, your Honor. I would defer to [Patricia G.]’s counsel to explain the matter more fully, but, yes, I would agree.

The Court: All right. [¶] Yes, Counsel, please.

1 Undesignated future references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 [Counsel for Patricia G.]: Yes, your Honor. [¶] The history is when we set it for an in-person bench trial, I did indicate on the record that [Patricia G.] is waiving a jury. [¶] I would ask the court to take a personal waiver from her before we start today, just to confirm those are still her current wishes.

The Court: All right. [¶] [Patricia G.], do you understand you have a right to a trial by jury of 12 people?

[Patricia G.]: Yes.

The Court: And are you now giving up that right and agreeing that the hearing can be held by me?

[Patricia G.]: Yes.

The Court: All right. No jury trial, but the hearing by the Court. And I’ll be governed by the same law, of course, that the jury would be. [¶] So you’re waiving your right to a jury trial; is that correct?

[Patricia G.]: Yes.

The Court: All right. You’ve had time to think about that, and that’s your own personal decision; is that correct?

[Patricia G.]: Yes.

The Court: All right. Fine. I will accept that, then.” (Italics added.)

DISCUSSION

Patricia G. contends her waiver of her right to a jury trial was invalid and her due process rights were violated because the on-the-record colloquy conducted by the court on June 20 was deficient. She bases her argument largely on the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151 (Sivongxxay), a criminal case involving an oral waiver of the 3 right to a jury trial in which the court included “advisory” recommendations on how to ensure such a waiver was valid. (Id. at pp. 169–170.) She maintains the court’s colloquy in this case was inadequate because it fails to satisfy the guiding standards set forth in Sivongxxay. We begin our analysis by observing that there is presently a difference of opinion among appellate courts as to whether principles of due process and equal protection in conservatorship cases require a personal waiver of the right to a jury trial on the record. (Compare Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378, 383 (Heather W.) [required] with Conservatorship of C.O. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894, 911 (Conservatorship of C.O.) [not required].) To resolve this case, however, we do not find it necessary to take sides in this debate. Neither are we required to comment on if or when the failure to comply with the “guidance” in Sivongxxay might affect the validity of an oral waiver, or the extent to which those principles even apply in the conservatorship context. There are significant differences in the facts of our case compared to those in Conservatorship of C.O. and Heather W. In Conservatorship of C.O., the conservatee never made a demand for jury trial, whereas in Heather W. the conservatee never received notice of her right to a jury trial, and consequently never waived it, on or off the record. In this case, Patricia G. demanded a jury trial, which she subsequently waived through counsel. This waiver would ordinarily be sufficient, as an attorney may make binding representations for their client during a conservatorship proceeding. (Conservatorship of John L. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 131, 146–147.) On appeal, Patricia G. makes no allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the June 14 waiver. In the absence of such arguments, “ ‘[w]e presume that counsel rendered adequate assistance and 4 exercised reasonable professional judgment in making significant trial decisions.’ ” (People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 261.) In accordance with that presumption, we must conclude that counsel adequately advised Patricia G. of her right to a jury trial before entering a waiver on her behalf. To the extent that this June 14 waiver altered (i.e., withdrew) the earlier jury trial demand, counsel prudently sought to confirm Patricia G.’s wishes with the court on the record six days later. The ensuing colloquy on June 20, under the totality of the circumstances, can only be reasonably interpreted as confirmation of the waiver that Patricia G. had already made knowingly, voluntarily, and with the advice of her counsel. Our conclusion aligns with the nature of counsel’s specific request: that the court confirmed Patricia G.’s wishes on the record. Finding counsel’s prior waiver—so confirmed—to be valid, we need not address what might be required in other, different circumstances. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

DATO, J. WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

O’ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Sivongxxay S078895 · 2017-06-19
San Luis Obispo Cnty. Pub. Guardian v. Heather W. (In Re Heather W.) 2d Civil B260975 · 2016-03-02
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. John L. No. S157151 · 2010-02-25