Error and/or relief
The court abused its discretion by denying diversion because its finding that the defendant is ineligible for diversion is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to reconsider defendant’s application for mental health diversion.
First Holding:
The Legislature enacted Penal Code sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements.
One, the defendant must have been diagnosed within the past five years with a mental disorder identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
And two, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(b)(1) and (b)(2)
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 677
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400
Second Holding:
Among the express purposes of the diversion program is to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.
The court must find a causal connection unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.
Eligibility no longer turned on findings to the court’s satisfaction. The statute requires the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates otherwise.
And it is the prosecution’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption.
Authority:
PEN 1001.35(a)
PEN 1001.36(b)
Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 80
People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891
People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 52
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688
Third Holding:
Once a defendant meets the eligibility requirements, the trial court must then determine whether a defendant is suitable for diversion using the four criteria outlined in section 1001.36(c): (1) A qualified mental health expert has determined the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant has consented to diversion and waived the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant has agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and (4) the court has determined the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(c)
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400-401
Fourth Holding:
We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, substantial evidence requires evidence and not mere speculation.
Authority:
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449
People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851
Fifth Holding:
In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.
In this context, we must determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.
To answer that question, we review the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.
(Gary note: The opinion goes on to recite details specific to this case on the question whether the mental disorder contributed to the offense, and concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that it did. The details are fact-specific and of no value in the context of these summaries, because unpublished decisions cannot be cited for comparison or authority or any other purpose.)
Authority:
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402
