Conservatorship of Lee C.
Annotate this CaseIn 2014 a complaint charged Lee C. (L.C.) with corporal injury to a cohabitant. The trial court found L.C. incompetent to stand trial and committed him to a state hospital. After the state hospital reported he was unlikely to be restored to competency in the foreseeable future, his counsel requested a preliminary hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1368.1. The court then referred L.C. to the Shasta County Public Guardian (Public Guardian) to initiate proceedings for a Murphy conservatorship. The Public Guardian objected to the referral on the basis that two criteria for a Murphy conservatorship were not met, and also protested that there was no funding to pay for the conservatorship. The trial court ordered the Public Guardian to petition for a Murphy conservatorship. The Public Guardian, represented by (Shasta) county counsel, filed the petition but continued to resist proceeding with the case. The Public Guardian sought to dismiss the petition and vacate the court’s order to proceed to a conservatorship trial. On the State's invitation, the court disqualified county counsel and appointed the Shasta County District Attorney to prosecute the petition for a Murphy conservatorship. The Public Guardian appealed the disqualification order, claiming it was an unlawful means to control and limit his discretion with respect to Murphy conservatorships. The Public Guardian also argued: (1) the criminal trial court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with conservatorship proceedings assigned to another court; (2) there was no misconduct to discipline with a disqualification order; (3) the order violated the separation of powers doctrine; and (4) the district attorney lacked standing. The Court of Appeal found, after review, that the disqualification order was premised on the court’s orders to file the petition for the Murphy conservatorship and take the matter to trial. The court had no authority to make those orders. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal vacated the order disqualifying county counsel for its failure to follow the invalid orders. The trial court did, however, have authority to review the Public Guardian’s decision not to file the petition for an abuse of discretion. As to that issue, the Court of Appeal agreed the Public Guardian abused his discretion in determining that two criteria for a Murphy conservatorship could not be satisfied, because that determination was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. However, because the trial court could not compel the filing of a Murphy conservatorship petition, the Court of Appeal vacated the orders to file the petition and take the case to trial.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.