Error and/or relief
The court imposed an improper burden on the defendant to demonstrate his mental disorder was a significant factor in the charged offense by reversing the statutory presumption in his favor on this issue. Because of this error, the court found defendant failed to prove he was eligible for mental health diversion as provided under Penal Code section 1001.36. Because the court did indeed use an erroneous standard, we will reverse and remand to allow the court to reevaluate the diversion request with a correct understanding of the law.
First Holding:
The prosecution bears burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that mental health diagnosis was not a causal factor in the crime.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36
People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490
Second Holding:
The court reviews the trial court’s denial of a request for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion.
Authority:
Negron v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1016
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449
Third Holding:
Diversion is discretionary, even if eligibility and suitability are present.
Authority:
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–893
People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888
Fourth Holding:
If eligibility is established, the trial court must then consider whether a particular individual is suitable, by rendering a positive finding on each of four factors: (1) that in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment; (2) that the defendant consent to diversion and waive speedy trial rights; (3) that the defendant will agree to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, which is defined as the likelihood the defendant would commit a new violent felony from a limited subset of particularly violent crimes, colloquially referred to as a “super strike.”
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(c)(4)
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–893