Conservatorship of Christopher B.

Objector Christopher B. appeals from the order of the probate court (following a bench trial) granting the petition of the Placer County Public Guardian (Public Guardian) to establish a conservatorship over the objector’s person and estate. Christopher B. argues there is insufficient evidence of a pending indictment in underlying criminal proceedings, a jurisdictional prerequisite for his “Murphy conservatorship” under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.; see Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5008, subd. (h)(1)(B), 5361; Pen. Code, § 1370.) Named after the legislator who sponsored the 1974 amendment that added a second definition of “gravely disabled” to the act (see Stats. 1974, ch. 1511, § 12, pp. 3321-3322), the Murphy conservatorship is a renewable one-year civil commitment for criminal defendants who are otherwise incompetent to stand trial for a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another, and who do not have the prospect of a restoration of competency (People v. Karriker (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 763, 775 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 412 ]; In re Polk (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1237 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d…

Concurring. — With apologies to Dolly Parton, here I go again, concurring with myself. (See People v. Elder (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1318 [ 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 795 ] (conc. & dis. opn. of Butz, J.).) My fellow justices quite rightly agree that the criminal court attempted to correct judicial error in a ruling that was final and, therefore, under Smith v. Superior Court (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 285 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 387 ] (Smith), its subsequent orders were void (and, as a result, subject to collateral attack in the present proceedings). Although unable to convince my colleagues to head down this path, I concur separately to advocate that there is other precedent suggesting Smith’s broad holding — that a dismissal order is a final ruling never subject to modification — is not necessarily correct.

Jackson v. Superior Court (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1051 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 81 ] (Jackson) added a nuance to the distinction between interim and “final” *819 orders. It concluded a trial court retains the jurisdiction to reconsider an order granting a petition for habeas corpus before the taking of an appeal, because the order was not “binding” until the period to appeal expired. (Id. at pp.…

Filed 9/28/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Placer) ----

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of C077467

CHRISTOPHER B.

(Super. Ct. No. SMH0001523)

MAUREEN F. BAUMAN, as Public Guardian, etc.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER B.,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, Michael W. Jones, Judge. Reversed.

Gerald O. Carden, County Counsel, Valerie D. Flood, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Roger B. Coffman, David K. Huskey and Renju P. Jacob, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Appellant.

Timothy E. Warriner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

1 Objector Christopher B. appeals from the order of the probate court (following a bench trial) granting the petition of the Placer County Public Guardian to establish a conservatorship over the objector’s person and estate. Christopher B. argues there is insufficient evidence of a pending indictment in underlying criminal proceedings, a jurisdictional prerequisite for his “Murphy conservatorship” under the Lanterman-Petris- Short Act. (Welf. &…