Conservatorship of Joanne R.
The court held that, because the judge merely explained the scheduling options and did not coerce the conservatee, Joanne's waiver of her statutory right to a jury trial was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary-so the trial-court order was affirmed-while cautioning that excessive delays in providing a jury trial.
Date Filed: December 17, 2021
Case Name: Conservatorship of Joanne R.
Case Number: B310906
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven
(‘The court decides whether a Lanterman‑Petris‑Short conservatorship judge improperly induced a conservatee to waive her statutory right to a jury trial by telling her she could have a bench trial that day or wait nine months for a jury trial. The appellate panel holds that the judge’s explanation of the scheduling options does not constitute coercion; Joanne’s waiver is deemed knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and the trial‑court order is affirmed. The decision is significant because, while upholding the waiver, the court warns that excessive delays in providing a conservatee’s jury trial may violate due‑process rights and urges trial courts to allocate resources to meet the LPS Act’s 10‑day trial‑initiation requirement.’, ‘4627c99a’)
This case summary was prepared for educational purposes. For the authoritative version, please refer to the full opinion or the official California Courts website.