Conservatorship of Christopher B.Annotate this Case
In September 2003, Christopher B. entered a plea of no contest to stalking his ex-wife's former husband, and for possessing a billy club. From 2005 through 2007, Christopher B. was found to be a mentally disordered offender and placed in a state hospital. He would not accept the diagnosis that he had a delusional disorder, and refused voluntary treatment. By February 2008, Christopher B. had been under commitment for the full length of the prison term for his offense, and the state hospital released him. Following his release, Christopher B. harassed his ex-wife and his stepdaughter, resulting in a June 2009 complaint alleging criminal threats, stalking, and being a felon in possession of a gun After a hearing, the criminal court found Christopher B. was not competent to stand trial; the criminal proceedings were suspended, and in September 2009 the court ordered his transfer to the custody of a state hospital. At the conclusion of the three-year maximum period of commitment, the state hospital found that Christopher B. could not be restored to competency because he refused voluntary treatment under his ongoing belief that he does not have any mental disorder. The state hospital recommended institution of a "Murphy conservatorship." Christopher B. appealed a probate court order granting the petition of the Placer County Public Guardian to establish a conservatorship over the his person and estate. Christopher B. argued there was insufficient evidence of a pending indictment in underlying criminal proceedings, a jurisdictional prerequisite for his “Murphy conservatorship” under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. Christopher B. also contended the evidence did not support imposition of a restriction on his right to enter into contracts. The Public Guardian cross-appealed, contending the probate court imposed an incorrect termination date for the renewed conservatorship. After review of the procedural history of this case, as well as the probate court record, the Court of Appeal vacated the order imposing the conservatorship with directions to dismiss the petition. This disposition mooted the issue of a contractual restriction and the cross-appeal.