I. BACKGROUND

On April 19, 2022, the trial court appointed the Public Guardian to be the conservator of the person and estate of K.H. The court subsequently renewed the conservatorship on July 11, 2023. On July 23, 2024, the Public Guardian petitioned to be reappointed as K.H.’s conservator. K.H. opposed the reappointment and requested a jury trial. At trial, Dr. Meekile Mason testified as an expert. Based on an interview with K.H., a review of her medical records, and his prior experience as K.H.’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Mason opined that K.H. met the diagnostic criteria for schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. Dr. Mason’s opinion was that, because of this psychiatric condition, K.H. was gravely disabled and could not live independently. The Public Guardian also testified that in her opinion K.H. could not live independently. Dr. Donald Siggins, a psychologist, testified that he had met with K.H. five times to evaluate her. He concluded that K.H. “indeed suffers from a schizophrenic spectrum disorder that is -- it’s well controlled with a long-term medication that she gets once a month.” Dr. Siggins testified that “the medication has blocked the bad symptoms of her disorder. And that with those symptoms under control that I felt she would be able to provide for her basic needs.” The jury found K.H. to be presently gravely disabled due to a mental disorder. The trial court reappointed a conservator for a period of one year. K.H. timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

In Ben C., the California Supreme Court concluded that the procedures referenced in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738

2 are not required in the appeal of a conservatorship under the LPS Act. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 536-537.) We decline to review the record for error. In her supplemental brief, K.H. raises numerous points that are unrelated to her jury trial and the order reappointing her conservator. At one point, she indicates that “[b]oth doctors on this case has [sic] stated widley [sic] on an expertise that I wasn’t gravely disabled.” But that is not true, as Dr. Mason opined she was gravely disabled. K.H. says that when the Public Guardian testified “they believed her which a lot of her statements weren’t factual.” No claim is raised related to this assertion. K.H. also asserts that she now has an expert, Dr. Wong, “stating I am ready for independent living, a very good psychologist.” Again, this point has no bearing on the judgment appealed from, as evidence from this expert was not introduced at trial. Having discerned no cognizable claim in K.H.’s supplemental brief, we dismiss the appeal. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544.)

III. DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

/s/

WISEMAN, J.*

We concur:

/s/ MAURO, Acting P. J.

/s/

KRAUSE, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

3