Error and/or relief
We conclude the trial court erred when it denied mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for the court to reconsider the defendant’s motion.
First Holding:
Diversion under section 1001.36 postpones criminal proceedings to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment, subject to specified conditions. It is intended to mitigate the entry and reentry of people with mental disorders into the criminal justice system by addressing their unique needs while simultaneously protecting public safety. A recognition that incarceration accomplishes little to deter lawlessness, but successful mental health treatment helps individuals and makes communities safer, led the Legislature to create and then expand this pretrial diversion.
Authority:
PEN 1001.35(a)(c)
People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 801
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 890–891
Second Holding:
To qualify for mental health diversion, defendants must meet the two eligibility criteria under section 1001.36(b), and the four suitability criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of that section.
Authority:
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 685
Third Holding:
Eligible defendants are suitable for diversion where (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant consents to diversion and agrees to waive his or her speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) if treated in the community, the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ as defined in section 1170.18, which concerns the risk the defendant will commit violent felonies colloquially referred to as super strikes.
Authority:
People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 452
Fourth Holding:
Even when the defendant makes a prima facie showing of meeting the statutory eligibility and suitability criteria, the court may nonetheless exercise its discretion to deny diversion.
But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law, including the strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders given the resulting benefits to both the offending individual and the community.
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.
Authority:
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 679
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892-893
Fifth Holding:
We review a trial court’s ruling on a request for mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.
Authority:
Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687
People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 453
Sixth Holding:
A ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason. If right upon any theory of the law applicable to the case, it must be sustained regardless of the considerations which may have moved the trial court to its conclusion.
Authority:
People v. Turner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 786, 807
Seventh Holding:
The court erred in finding the defendant not suitable for diversion because of his repeated failures to comply with other forms of supervision. It was an abuse of discretion to deny diversion based on such reasoning, whether on the ground that the defendant’s symptoms would not respond to treatment or on the ground that the recommended treatment plan would not meet his or her needs.
Authority:
PEN 1001.36(c)(1), (f)(1)(A)(i)
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 893-894
Eighth Holding:
We will conditionally reverse the judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to reconsider the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion, bearing in mind the statutory principles and purpose of the statute, including the goal of promoting increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate their entry and reentry into the criminal justice system.
We express no opinion as to how the court should rule on remand. Still, we observe that denying diversion based on a defendant’s treatment history may be a proper exercise of discretion if the proposed treatment plan is no different from one that failed in the past.
On the other hand, a defendant’s failure to benefit from past treatment may not support an order denying diversion where the proposed treatment plan adequately addresses the defendant’s mental health needs and is significantly different from the prior treatment.
Authority:
People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 892, 895
People v. Russo (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 134, 139
Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 894-895