Public Guardian of Sonoma County v. E.H. CA1/4

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A summary of E.H.’s prior conservatorship proceedings can be found in our previous opinion, Public Guardian of Sonoma County v. E.H. (April 14, 2015, A143271) [nonpub. opn.]. In June 2015, the Public Conservator petitioned the trial court for reappointment as E.H.’s Murphy conservator for an additional year. The petition was supported by the medical opinion of two physicians who opined that E.H. continued to be gravely disabled as defined by subdivision (h)(1)(B) of section 5008, such that a Murphy conservatorship

2 remained appropriate.2 (See § 5361.) In an accompanying declaration, E.H.’s treating physician indicated that E.H. continued to have deeply entrenched delusions and was thus unable to assist counsel. At the hearing on August 4, 2015, the parties stipulated that E.H. had a current indictment pending, charging a serious felony. E.H.’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Brar, was then qualified as an expert in psychiatry and testified regarding E.H.’s mental condition. With respect to competency, Dr. Brar stated: “[E.H.] lacks a clear, rational understanding of the events that took place. His understanding is clouded by deep- seated,…