Error and/or relief
The trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mental health diversion because substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined under section 1001.36.
First Holding:
In 2018, the Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to create a pretrial diversion program for defendants with certain mental health disorders. Pretrial diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The statute expressly promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.
Authority:
Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133
Second Holding:
As presently enacted, section 1001.36(b) provides that a defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if two criteria are met.
First, the defendant has been diagnosed with a specified mental disorder within the last five years by a qualified mental health expert.
Second, the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. If the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.
Authority:
People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795
Third Holding:
If a defendant meets these eligibility requirements, the court also must find that the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion based on satisfaction of the following criteria: (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment. (2) The defendant consents to diversion and waives the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion. And (4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in Section 1170.18, if treated in the community.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(b)
People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795
Fourth Holding:
Section 1170.18 defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). That provision of section 667 sets forth eight categories of offenses that are commonly referred to as “super strikes,” including any homicide offense, and including any attempted homicide offense, defined in sections 187 to 191.5, inclusive.
Authority:
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449 [noting that the “super strikes” include murder and attempted murder]
Fifth Holding:
Ultimately, however, diversion under section 1001.36 is discretionary, not mandatory, even if all the statutory requirements are met.
Authority:
People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 887
People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147
Sixth Holding:
We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.
In addition, we review a trial court’s factual findings in support of its ruling for substantial evidence.
On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Although we must ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends.
Authority:
People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795
People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147
People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079
Seventh Holding:
Where the court chooses to exercise this residual discretion to deny diversion, its statement of reasons should reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute and explain why diversion would not meet those goals. Further, in the guise of exercising its residual discretion, a court is not permitted to redefine public safety in a manner inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed intent.
Authority:
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 893