Error and/or relief
The court’s finding that the People overcame the statutory presumption that the defendant’s mental health diagnosis was a significant factor in the commission of the offenses was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, its denial of his application on that basis was an abuse of discretion.
As a result, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand with instructions for the trial court to find the defendant eligible for diversion and hold a hearing to determine the defendant’s suitability for diversion.
If the court determines the defendant is suitable for diversion, it may grant his application. If the court determines the defendant is not suitable, the defendant’s convictions and sentence shall be reinstated.
First 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
Second 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 substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the [disputed] fact was true. To answer that question, we review 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.
Authority:
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401
Third Holding:
The Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to authorize trial courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders. To be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must meet two requirements. First, the 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. Second, the defendant’s mental disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the offense.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(b)
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 677
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400
Fourth Holding:
To ensure that diversion applies as broadly as possible, the Legislature amended section 1001.36 to include a presumption that a defendant’s mental disorder diagnosis was a significant factor in the commission of the offense if the diagnosis occurred within the past five years. Once the presumption is established, to overcome it, the People must prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor in defendant’s commission of the offense.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(b)(2)
Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 80
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688
Fifth Holding:
Even if a defendant meets the eligibility requirements, before the court can grant a defendant diversion, the court must also find the defendant suitable for diversion using the four criteria outlined in section 1001.36(c). Specifically, the court must find that (1) a qualified mental health expert has determined the defendant’s symptoms would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant has consented to diversion and waived the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant has agreed to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion, and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.
Authority:
PEN 1001.26(c)
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 400-401
Sixth Holding:
Even after finding a defendant eligible and suitable for diversion, however, a trial court may exercise its residual discretion to deny diversion. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. That purpose includes a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.
Authority:
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896
Seventh Holding:
In 2024, a mental health professional diagnosed the defendant with PTSD, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, and alcohol use disorder. Defendant’s diagnosis established a presumption that his mental health disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the robberies.
In response, the People argued that that it was simply impossible to believe that PTSD or depression caused the defendant and his cohorts to plan the robberies, which were obviously coordinated and planned out. The People offered no evidence, and the trial court did not identify any, establishing by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to defendant’s commission of the offenses. Their speculation about the cause of the robberies is not substantial evidence.
The absence of evidence proving that the defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the [robberies] 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.
By finding the presumption was overcome even though the People offered no evidence that would establish that defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to defendant’s commission of the offenses, the trial court effectively shifted the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that his mental disorder contributed to the offenses. That is not the showing the statute requires.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(b)(2)
People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404
Eighth Holding:
A court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. Because substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that the presumption was overcome, it abused its discretion in denying defendant diversion based on that finding.
Authority:
Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 81
People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449
Ninth Holding:
We review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. A substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if the record contains reasonable, credible evidence of solid value upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching the conclusion in question.
Once such evidence is found, the substantial evidence test is satisfied. The trial court found defendant would not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety as defined within the statute. Meaning that he was not likely to commit a super-strike offense if granted diversion. An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge. Because the record contains substantial evidence to support that finding, we do not disturb it.
Authority:
Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401
People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 Cal.5th 432, 450
People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377