Error and/or relief
The court erred in denying his petition either because the court either improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to prove his mental disorder was a significant factor in his charged crimes, or because substantial evidence does not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that his mental disorder was not such a factor.
First Holding:
Penal Code section 1001.36 provides that a defendant in a criminal case is eligible for mental health diversion if he demonstrates: (1) he has been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder; and (2) that disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged crime.
The defendant bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that he or she meets the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion. However, 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:
PEN 1001.36(b)(2)
People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1078–1079
Second Holding:
Additionally, the statute gives the trial court discretion to deny diversion even if the statutory requirements are met. However, this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.
Authority:
Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 134
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401
Third Holding:
We review the trial court’s denial of 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 when it bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.
Authority:
People v. Pacheco (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 207, 213
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449
Fourth Holding:
A trial court is not bound by an expert’s testimony and opinion. But even were the court to discount the psychiatrist’s report’s conclusion in its entirety, the absence of evidence proving that petitioner’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 petitioner’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses. It was the prosecution’s burden to present such clear and convincing evidence.
Here, it appears that the court either placed the burden on the defendant to demonstrate his mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offenses or found clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a significant factor. In other words, the court either applied the wrong legal standard or based its decision on a factual finding unsupported by substantial evidence. Either way, reversal is required.
Authority:
In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212
In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 823 [The fact finder determines the facts, not the experts. Indeed, the fact finder may reject even a unanimity of expert opinion]
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449