Conservatorship of John M. CA1/1

── Conservatorship of John M. CA1/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/3/26 Conservatorship of John M. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Conservatorship of the Person of JOHN M. PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Petitioner and Respondent, A174524 v. (San Francisco City and County JOHN M., Super. Ct. No. PMH-25-025053) Objector and Appellant. Following a September 2025 bench trial, the trial court found objector and appellant John M. to be gravely disabled under the Lanterman-Petris- Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). The court appointed the San Francisco Department of Disability and Aging Services, Office of the Public Conservator (public guardian) as John M.’s conservator. On appeal, John M.’s sole claim is that reversal is required because the record does not show he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. We disagree and affirm.  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2025, the public guardian petitioned to be appointed conservator over John M., who was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was unhoused but currently in the hospital. In an accompanying affidavit, a doctor averred that John M. had visited the emergency room over 100 times throughout the past two years, was in a wheelchair, and struggled to meet his own medical and nutritional needs. The doctor also averred that John M. did not have the capacity to consent to psychotropic medication and other treatment for his mental disorder. The trial court appointed a temporary conservator pending a hearing on the petition. After several continuances, the matter came on for hearing on September 4, 2025. John M. was present with counsel. The trial court told John M. that he had the right to a jury trial on whether he was gravely disabled. The court explained that a jury trial would involve “call[ing] in several members of the community and ultimately [12] members would have to agree unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt that [he was] gravely disabled.” Alternatively, the court said, John M. could elect “a judge trial[,] where the judge alone, in this case me, would make that decision. So, if you waive a right to a jury trial, you’re agreeing to have me alone decide the issue.” The following discussion between the trial court, John M., and his counsel then occurred: “THE COURT: Would you like to schedule a case for jury trial or proceed today with a judge trial? “[JOHN M.]: I believe if I have a good chance of getting out, getting off conservatorship, I’m fine with you. But if I don’t have a good chance, I’m gonna 2  need a jury trial. “[COUNSEL]: So, Mr. M[.], you have a choice. You can either choose to go forward today with a bench trial with Judge Murphy or we can pick a different date for a jury trial. It is your decision. “[JOHN M.]: I would like to show you when I went on. I guess we’ll try a judge trial. I can walk now. I couldn’t walk before. Someo