Error and/or relief
The trial court’s finding that the People provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in his commission of the offenses was not supported by substantial evidence. We remand to the trial court for a new diversion eligibility hearing under section 1001.36. If the court determines that defendant is eligible for diversion, it may grant his application. If the court determines defendant is ineligible, defendant’s convictions and sentence shall be reinstated.
First Holding:
The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a 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 the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense. There is a presumption that a defendant’s mental disorder diagnosis, if the diagnosis occurred within the past five years, was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Once a presumption is established, it is the People’s burden to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to overcome it.
Authority:
PEN 1001.35
PEN 1001.36
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 678
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400
Second Holding:
We review a trial court’s ruling on an application for mental health diversion for an 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 findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. By definition, ‘substantial evidence’ requires evidence and not mere speculation.
Authority:
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449
People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851
Third Holding:
In reviewing a trial court’s finding that a fact has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the question before us is whether the record contains evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the disputed fact was true. We view 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. Those inferences must be drawn from evidence rather than speculation
Authority:
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401-402
People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851
Fourth Holding:
The absence of evidence proving that defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses.
Authority:
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404