Presentation on theme: "People V. KENNEBREW Connie D. draxler, deputy director LA Public Guardian Leah davis, Assistant County Counsel, LA County Counsel."— Presentation transcript:
1People V. KENNEBREWConnie D. draxler, deputy director LA Public GuardianLeah davis, Assistant County Counsel, LA County Counsel
2Demographics Nattie Kennebrew Age 86 at time of referral to Public GuardianWidowed with no local familyHistory of being a veteran – received medical care from VAHistory of owning a locksmith companyCharges include murder, attempted murder and assault with a deadly weaponAt time of referral Mr. Kennebrew is legally blind due to glaucoma, diagnosed with dementia and suffering from Diabetes and Hypertension. No history of mental illness
3Chronology of events1/28/2009 – Nattie Kennebrew age 83 and suffering from dementia and delusions allegedly shot and killed the apartment maintenance man who entered his apt to fix a faulty garbage disposal. He also attempted to shoot and kill the apartment manager7/1/2009 – Arraigned; Doubt raised RE: competency11/23/2009 – Declared Incompetent to Stand Trial and committed to Patton State Hospital
4Chronology Continued2/7/2012 – Patton concludes Mr. Kennebrew was unlikely to regain competency. Patton referred case to PG requesting a LPS conservatorshipPG determines Mr. Kennebrew does not meet statutory criteria for LPS8/23/2012 – Criminal Court refers matter to PG for possible conservatorshipPG notifies court that LPS conservatorship will not be pursued due to diagnosis and limits on mental health funding and placement10/25/2012 – Patton refers case again to PG, requesting LPS conservatorshipNOTE – Maximum Commitment Date = November 22, 2012 (Thanksgiving Day)
5Chronology ContinuedOctober and November 2012 – Director of Mental Health, PG and CoCo receive inquiries from Board of Supervisors based on requests from DA’s office for intervention and assistance11/7/ Independent Forensic and Neuropsychological evaluation performed at request of PG11/16/2012 – Detailed report to court declining to file LPS conservatorship based on diagnosis, lack of any mental health history, recommendation for placement in SNF and client willing to accept assistance for needs to be met
6Chronology continued11/15/2012 – PG served with Notice of Hearing of Conservatorship and Request for Appointment of Probate ConservatorPetition filed by Deputy DAPetition names Office of the Public Guardian as ConservatorHearing set in probate court for December 31, 2012Mr. Kennebrew not released on 11/22/2012 because of pending probate conservatorship hearing
7Chronology continued12/31/2012 – PG and County Counsel appear in Probate Court. Deputy DA and criminal case Public Defender present.PG objects to filing of petition and naming Public Guardian as conservatorProbate Court orders PG to conduct an investigation into need for Probate ConservatorshipProbate Volunteer Panel attorney appointed for Mr. Kennebrew to represent his interests in Probate conservatorship petition
8Chronology continuedInvestigation - PG finds son and numerous family members. Family had lost contact following crimeSon, Andrew Kennebrew states he will take father and care for him in Michigan upon release from PattonPG reports there is a suitable alternative to filing Probate conservatorship. DA objectsProbate Court orders son, Andrew, to file Probate Conservatorship in California
9Chronology continued4/5/2012 – Probate Court appoints Andrew Kennebrew Conservator of the Person of Nattie KennebrewCourt authorizes Andrew to take Nattie out of state to MichiganAndrew is ordered to show proof of filing of conservatorship in MichiganCalifornia court inclined to terminate CA conservatorship upon Michigan order granting conservatorshipAndrew ordered to obtain a doctors evaluation of Ctees medication and file report in CAStatus hearing set for 10/25/2013 regarding medication, placement and status of conservatorship in MichiganDA’s petition to appoint PG is denied with prejudice and PG is excused from case
10Chronology continued Probate Court Letters of Conservatorship Full Medical PowersDementia Medications GrantedNO Dementia Placement powers grantedNo evidence Nattie needs a locked placementDA objects strongly – wants Nattie in a locked placementCourt ResponseThoughtful, extensive oral response regarding role of Probate conservatorship and the appropriate use of the conservatorshipTells DA – not appropriate to use probate conservatorship just because her hands are statutorily tied in the criminal court matter
11Chronology continuedCriminal Court case is continued throughout the pending Probate case.Criminal Court Public Defender requests for criminal case to be dismissed is denied repeatedly.4/10/2012 –Criminal court appearances - Notify that Probate conservatorship established. DA issues objections regarding public safety and lack of locked placementCourt orders PG to explain why we are refusing to establish a conservatorship in order to place him in a setting that will serve his needs and protects the public safety. PG ordered to provide court other options to place Nattie in an environment where he will not pose a danger to public.
12Chronology continued5/9/2013 – PG Response to Court’s Inquiry of 4/10/2013Defined and Reported on the following:PGConservatorships (LPS, Murphy and Probate)PG InvestigationsFiling a Petition for LPSDementia IssuePlacement of LPS ConservateesHistory of Kennebrew case and conclusion on which conservatorship is appropriateIssue of public safety under Probate conservatorshipResponse will be the basis of an appeal
13Chronology continued5/9/2013 – DA files “Proposed Findings” and Court orders DA to prepare those findings for the minute order. Case continued to 5/15/20135/15/2013 – PG/CoCo file its own Findings and OrderDA files amended Findings and Order – this orders PG to file a LPS and Murphy conservatorship (A and B)Court acts on DA’s Amended Findings and Orders. Court specifically states PG abused our discretion. PG ordered to file conservatorship within 45 days.Court notified that PG will file appeal
14Appeal process6/20/2013 – File Petition for Writ of Mandate with 2nd Appellate DistrictChronology of EventsRequest for reviewFailure by Trial Court to follow Karriker - Court abused its discretionIntroduction of ConservatorshipsPG properly exercised its discretionRequest for immediate stay pending decision
15Appeal Process continued 7/12/ District Attorney files Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandate7/25/2013 – Appellate Court issues Palma Notice8/23/2013 – County Counsel Reply to DA Opposition8/23/2013 – DA objects to the filing of the Palma Notice10/1/2013 – Appellate Court issues OSC to Judge Shapiro (criminal court judge)10/31/2013 – County Counsel Reply to Return to Petition for Writ of Mandate
16Appeals Process continued 11/20/2013 – Oral Arguments12/19/2013 – Writ of Mandate is Denied1/3/2014 – County Counsel files Petition for Rehearing1/17/2014 – Appellate Court issues order making technical changes. Petition for rehearing is denied.1/28/2014 – County Counsel Files Petition for Review with the State Supreme Court4/9/2014– Petition for Review Denied.
17Kennebrew Decision Findings Dementia is a qualifying diagnosis for a LPS and Murphy conservatorshipPG has lost discretion RE: Murphy Conservatorship.A court can order the Public Guardian to file a Murphy conservatorshipCourt must find the defendant currently dangerousPG role is purely ministerial – you are just carrying out the act ordered by the court to petition and to serve as conservatorWe believe we retain discretion RE: LPS ConservatorshipKarriker case
18Potential Impacts for LA county Flood gates open – influx of cases?Need for more State Hospital bedsCriminal court cases handled differently from designated facilities?Could potential differences lead to more legal challenges?Will Karriker prevail on LPS conservatorship cases if we are challenged by the court?Will the DA convince judges to declare someone dangerous just to get the Murphy?Modification of Designated Facilities procedures? Can designated facilities send LPS referrals for clients with only a dementia diagnosis because LPS system faster than Probate?
19Kennebrew case 4/22/2014 Filed Murphy petition WIC 5008 (h)(1)(B) “Protest” PetitionSimilar to a regular Murphy petitionMore factsDiscussion on why we don’t agree with order to file MurphyPetition states we filed because we were orderedCase keeps getting continued for Jury TrialProbate case continued pending the decision on the Murphy petitionNext court date – 9/30/2014
20Post KennebrewNo flood gates BUT steady number of criminal court orders to investigateNote LA County has a designated mental health courtroom for 1370, 2970 and 1026 cases but cases can originate from any criminal courtMost Dept 95 orders state – “Investigate suitability for LPS/Murphy conservatorship.”Some discretion but court can overrule our decision or order us to further explain decisionsOutlying courts either quote Kennebrew or use “initiate conservatorship proceedings” (Karriker)Cases refused pre-Kennebrew are coming back through new court ordered investigations
21Post kennebrew continued Adapting to KennebrewProceduresProtest PetitionsDementia only cases – If ordered to investigate suitability of LPS/Murphy we are conducting more joint Probate and LPS investigations (2 deputies) to determine what is the most appropriate conservatorship, including if Probate is more appropriateChallengesNo consistency within DA’s office or courtsProblems with documentation from State Hospital regarding GD or dangerousnessPlacement remains a ?Desire for PG to solve the problems faced by the criminal justice system
22Post kennebrew continued Statistics0ver 30 cases referred with older adults committing violent crimes with diagnosis of dementia/TBI/Neurocognitive DisorderConducted over3 Murphy petitions filed – 2 are protest petitions2 Probate conservatorships filed in lieu of LPS/Murphy1 Probate petition filed – order by criminal court handling misdemeanor charge