Error and/or relief
The trial court abused its discretion when it found the defendant unsuitable for mental health diversion despite acknowledging he did not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a “super strike.”
First Holding:
Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health disorders.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36
People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147
Second Holding:
A trial court’s ruling on a request for mental health diversion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.
Authority:
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449
Third Holding:
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. A trial court further abuses its discretion if its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.
Authority:
People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377
Fourth Holding:
A defendant is suitable for mental health 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; (3) 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(c)(1)-(4)
People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795
Fifth Holding:
Under section 1170.18, an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety is an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a “super strike,” which includes any homicide or attempted homicide offense, any serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death, and sexually violent offenses.
Authority:
PEN 1170.18(c)
PEN 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)
Sixth Holding:
A trial court may not deny diversion to an otherwise eligible defendant unless it finds the defendant is likely to commit one of these offenses. In making this determination, the trial court may consider the opinions of the district attorney, the defense, or a qualified mental health expert, and may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, the defendant’s violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(c)(4)
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450
Seventh Holding:
The trial court found defendant unsuitable for mental health diversion despite acknowledging that he was not likely to commit a super strike offense. That acknowledgment was reasonable, given that defendant had never previously been convicted of a super strike offense and was not charged with a super strike in the underlying cases. Under the circumstances, there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion defendant was likely to commit a super strike.
Authority:
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 897
Eighth Holding:
To the extent the trial court was relying on defendant’s history of noncompliance with medication, self-medicating with methamphetamine, his unwillingness to obey court orders, and probation violations, this was also an error. None of these past personal flaws is a reason that the Legislature has identified as valid for denying mental health diversion. Further, none of these reasons is consistent with the underlying purpose of the mental health diversion statute, namely to provide treatment to break the cycle of criminal recidivism for those with diagnosed disorders. Given that the court’s rationale failed to justify its decision to deny defendant mental health diversion, we must vacate the trial court’s orders.
Authority:
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 897 [expanding the reasons to deny diversion is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the mental health diversion statute]E