Error and/or relief
The court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to continue trial (set to begin within a week) for a referral for consideration of mental health diversion.
The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded with directions that the defendant be given a reasonable opportunity to file an application for mental health diversion and, should she choose to file such an application, to have it considered on its merits.
First Holding:
We review a trial court’s denial of a request for a continuance for abuse of discretion. In Seigler, the defendant’s counsel filed a petition for mental health diversion and a request for a continuance on the day trial was to start. The court denied the requested continuance in part because counsel exhibited no diligence in filing the motion for a continuance and application for diversion on the day of trial.
The court in Seigler noted the record suggested mental health was an issue, defense counsel’s difficulty communicating with his client appeared to explain the failure to obtain a mental health evaluation, and the potentially enormous benefits of a continuance for the defendant outweighed any burden that granting it would cause.
Seigler’s reasoning applies with at least equal force in this case.
Authority:
People v. Seigler (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601, 609-610
Second Holding:
A petition for mental health diversion is timely so long as it is made before attachment of jeopardy at trial or the entry of a guilty or no contest plea, whichever occurs first.
Authority:
People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 819