Conservatorship of C.O.
Annotate this Case
The public guardian, C.O.'s conservator under Welf. & Inst. Code 5000, sought reappointment. A written citation for conservatorship was served on C.O., stating: “You have the right to a court or jury trial on the issue of grave disability. The request for a jury trial must be made within five days of the hearing.” C.O. did not request a jury trial. At an initial hearing, C.O. was represented by counsel. Before C.O. was in the courtroom, C.O.’s attorney stated that he had informed his clients of the right to a jury trial, and "they’ve waived these rights.” With C.O. in the courtroom, his attorney stated (in C.O.’s presence) that C.O. was requesting a court trial. The court did not advise C.O. on the record of his right to a jury trial or elicit a personal waiver of that right. During the subsequent trial, neither C.O. nor his attorney requested a jury trial. The judge found “beyond a reasonable doubt, that [C.O.] has both been advised in writ[]ing of his right to a jury trial [and] that he remains a gravel[]y disabled person,” then granted the reappointment petition.
The court of appeal affirmed. C.O. does not dispute the conclusion that he is gravely disabled. It is not reasonably probable that an outcome more favorable to C.O. would have resulted had the court personally advised him of his jury trial right. Nothing suggests that C.O. would have elected a jury trial if the court had advised him personally of that right.
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.