Category Archives: Discretion

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000842

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In the prior appeal, the appellate court reversed the denial of the defendant’s petition for recall of sentence under section 1172.6 and ordered the trial court to grant the petition. On remand, the trial court granted the motion and redesignated the offense as three counts, and imposed the upper term.

It was error to resurrect and redesignate for sentencing counts that were dismissed in the original plea negotiations. It was also error to impose the upper term on circumstances in aggravation that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

When the trial court granted the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, his judgment became nonfinal and was subject to the retroactive application of AB 333. AB 333 made changes to the law on gang enhancements and narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang.

The defendant’s admission under the former law does not satisfy the elements now required under the current law. The stipulation at the preliminary hearing that the [named gang] was an ongoing street gang that engages in a pattern of criminal activity pursuant to section 186.22(f) is insufficient under any standard to prove either the gang enhancement or the gang offense under current law.

Authority:

People v. Trent (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 251, 262–263 [once petition for resentencing under sec. 1172.6 is granted, judgment is no longer final]

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 393 [AB 333 is retroactive to nonfinal judgments]

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505, 526–527

Second Holding:

When a murder or attempted murder conviction is set aside under section 1172.6, the petitioner’s conviction shall be redesignated as the target offense or underlying felony for resentencing purposes if the murder or attempted murder was charged generically, and the target offense was not charged.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(e)

Third Holding:

Section 1172.6 does not define what constitutes an underlying felony or target offense, but our high court in Arellano held that the meaning of these terms is clear—an underlying felony refers to the felony underlying a felony-murder theory, and the target offense refers to the offense the natural and probable consequence of which was murder.

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005 [the trial court erred by resurrecting counts dismissed in the parties’ plea agreement on resentencing]

Fourth Holding:

Application of the trial court’s resentencing discretion under section 1172.6(e) here is circumscribed by the prosecution’s exercise of charging discretion in the original proceeding. Here, that limitation is the district attorney’s election to dismiss all charges involving [victim 1] as well as the substantive gang count in return for the defendant’s plea to a single count of attempted second degree murder of [victim 2].

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 476 [deeming it unlikely the Legislature intended to allow the prosecution to effectively revisit its charging decisions  every time a petitioner succeeds in setting aside a  conviction under section 1172.6]

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1026

Fifth Holding:

There is no dispute that there is no qualifying felony for which the prosecutor could have proceeded under a theory of felony murder in this case.

Thus when resentencing the defendant, the trial court was required to redesignate his offense as a target offense—the offense of which the natural and probable consequence was the attempted murder.

In this case, conviction for attempted murder of [victim 2] was properly redesignated as assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2]. We conclude that the trial court erred by resurrecting counts stemming from conduct that the district attorney plainly chose to dismiss as part of the negotiated settlement.

These dismissed counts cannot form the predicate for relief for the defendant’s petition for resentencing. Because the defendant did not plead to any other offenses than the attempted murder of [victim 2], the target offense underlying the attempted murder of one named person is not two assaults with a firearm on two persons. Courts may not impose uncharged and unproven sentence allegations or enhancements when resentencing a successful petitioner under section 1172.6e).

Authority:

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 475, 477

People v. Lara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1005, 1027

Sixth Holding:

Though not applicable here, had the prosecution alleged and proved a target offense in addition to the attempted murder, on successful petition under section 1172.6, the court would be limited to sentencing the defendant on the charged target offenses that were proved. The trial court under section 1172.6(d)(3) would not have been otherwise entitled to resentence the defendant on charges that could have been [but were not] established by the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 470

Seventh Holding:

The trial court erred by imposing an upper term for the count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm on [victim 2] without holding a jury trial as requested.

Under section 1170(b), when a statute specifies three possible terms, the trial court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, unless circumstances in aggravation that justify an upper term sentence have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

However, a trial court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Eighth Holding:

After the defendant’s resentencing, the California Supreme Court decided Wiley. Relying on Erlinger, our high court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury determination on aggravating factors related to a defendant’s criminal history, such as whether a defendant’s convictions were of increasing seriousness under rule 4.421(b)(2), and whether the defendant’s prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory under rule 4.421(b)(5).

Wiley concluded that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. 

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834 [virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea]

Ninth Holding:

where a defendant was deprived of a jury trial on aggravating factors used at sentencing, we must apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard in Chapman.

Under this standard, we must reverse the judgment unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1087

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

Tenth Holding:

The trial court relied on the defendant’s rap sheet to determine that the crimes were of increasing seriousness and were numerous under rule 4.421(b)(2). According to defendant’s rap sheet, he had a juvenile adjudication in 2007 [for specified offenses], 2010 juvenile adjudications for [different offenses] and a 2014 conviction for [a different offense].  

Based on these series of offenses, a rational jury could have disagreed as to whether it demonstrated criminal conduct of increasing seriousness. Likewise, a rational jury could have also found that the defendant’s prior convictions were not particularly numerous. The failure to submit these aggravating factors to the jury was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant is entitled to reversal of the upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1089

People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 848

 

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000825

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the finding of unreasonable risk to public safety is not supported by substantial evidence and the trial court abused its discretion in finding the defendant unsuitable for diversion.

(Gary note: I have set out the various holdings and authorities below that represent the applicable law and principles, but I have not recited the court’s analysis of the facts in this case on which it based there was no substantial evidence to support the court’s conclusion that the defendant was a danger to the community. Suffice it to say, the appellate court found the court’s reasoning inadequate to support denial of the request for mental health diversion.)

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes courts to grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendants who meet six qualifying requirements. The stated purpose of the diversion statute is to promote all of the following: (a) Increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. (b) Allowing local discretion and flexibility for counties in the development and implementation of diversion for individuals with mental disorders across a continuum of care settings. (c) Providing diversion that meets the unique mental health treatment and support needs of individuals with mental disorders.

If the defendant successfully completes diversion, including having in place a plan for long-term mental health care, the criminal charges shall be dismissed. However, if after diversion is granted, a qualified mental health expert concludes the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the assigned program, the court shall, after notice to the defendant, hold a hearing to determine whether criminal proceedings should be reinstated or treatment modified.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

PEN 1001.35

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 995

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149–1150

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2023, mental health diversion requires the trial court to find that the defendant is both eligible for diversion and suitable for the program. A defendant is eligible if they meet two criteria: first, the defendant must have been diagnosed with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, within the last five years, by a qualified mental health expert.

Second, the disorder must be a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. 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)

Third Holding:

This presumption cannot be overcome by the mere absence of evidence demonstrating the defendant’s mental illness was a factor in the alleged offenses. If a mere absence of evidence were sufficient, the court would effectively be impermissibly shifting the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that his mental disorder contributed to the offenses.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 404

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 688–689

Fourth Holding:

If the defendant satisfies the statutory eligibility requirements, the court must then consider whether the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion. The four criteria to assess suitability are grouped in section 1001.36, subdivision (c). As with the diagnosis eligibility requirement, the first of these relies on input from a medical professional, in this instance the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, that the symptoms of defendant’s mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment.

The second and third requirements are satisfied if the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights and to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion. Only the fourth requirement necessitates a trial court finding, to wit, that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892–894

Fifth Holding:

Even here, however, the Legislature has narrowly defined the applicable criteria. Borrowing from sections 1170.18(c) and 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), an unreasonable risk to public safety means a likelihood that the defendant will commit one of the violent felonies specifically enumerated in the statute.

The listed felonies are colloquially known as “super strikes.” Super strikes are a narrowly drawn subset of violent felonies involving extreme violence. We note that the lack of a criminal record is strong evidence that a defendant is unlikely to commit a future super strike offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001

People v. Moine (2011) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

People v. Hoffman (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1310

Sixth Holding:

Assuming the defendant is both eligible and suitable, the trial court must also be satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant. This is not an additional eligibility or suitability requirement the defendant must meet. Rather, section 1001.36(f)(1) read as a whole appears to contemplate an ongoing assessment to assure that defendant will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions as part of the diversion program.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(i)

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

Seventh Holding:

Finally, even if a defendant has made a prima facie showing that all the express statutory eligibility and suitability requirements are met, the court may still exercise its discretion to deny diversion. But this residual discretion is not unfettered; it must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. Where the court chooses to exercise that 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 these goals.

Authority:

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

Eighth Holding:

We review the trial court’s factual findings as to the enumerated statutory criteria for substantial evidence. Under this deferential standard of review, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. Although we must ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

Ninth Holding:

We review the trial court’s ultimate decision whether to grant mental health diversion for an abuse of discretion. By its terms, section 1001.36 is designed to encourage trial courts to broadly authorize pretrial mental health diversion, providing treatment for qualifying mental disorders that result in criminal behavior. As with any principled exercise of discretion, the court must utilize the appropriate criteria consistent with the principles and purposes of the governing law, only drawing conclusions supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1080

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000815

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to impose a condition of probation that the defendant must submit to chemical testing for the use of alcohol at any time as directed by probation officer or other law enforcement officer.

First Holding:

As an initial matter, we address and reject the Attorney General’s argument that the defendant’s failure to object to the alcohol testing condition forfeited the issue on appeal. Neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic, and appellate courts have discretion to review otherwise forfeited challenges. Here, we exercise our right to decide the appeal on its merits, in order to eliminate the need to address the defendant’s alternative ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We now turn to the reasonableness of condition

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 928

Second Holding:

The defendant challenges the imposition of probation condition 13, which required him to submit to alcohol testing, as unreasonable under Lent. He contends the condition does not make sense because the trial court struck condition 12 that prohibited him from consuming or possessing alcohol.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481

Third Holding:

We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. That is, a reviewing court will disturb the trial court’s decision to impose a particular condition of probation only if, under all the circumstances, that choice is arbitrary and capricious and is wholly unreasonable.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

Fourth Holding:

A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.

The conditions of probation aimed at rehabilitating the offender need not be so strictly tied to the offender’s precise crime as long as they are reasonably directed at curbing an offender’s future criminality. But there must be a strong connection between the burdens imposed by the challenged condition and a probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120

Fifth Holding:

Notably, when asked to strike the condition requiring the defendant to abstain from drinking alcohol, the sentencing court freely did so without any apparent reservation. This striking shows the court was not concerned that the defendant’s alcohol consumption had the potential for abuse or was likely to lead to future criminality.

As such, because the defendant was allowed to possess and consume alcohol, there was no rational need to test the defendant for alcohol consumption as a condition of probation. Therefore, we conclude the testing condition here has no deterrent effect on the defendant’s future criminality and is unreasonable.

Authority:

People v. Kiddoo (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 922, 928, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 236–237 [court struck a probation condition that appellant not possess or consume alcohol or frequent places where alcohol was sold because there was no factual indication in the record that the proscribed behavior is reasonably related to future criminal behavior]

Sixth Holding:

Because the court’s imposition of condition 13 was therefore an abuse of discretion, we order it stricken.

Authority:

In re Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 901 [In an appropriate case, a probation condition that is not sufficiently precise or narrowly drawn may be modified in this court and affirmed as modified]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000811

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to order a stay-away order upon sentencing the defendant. Otherwise, we affirm the court’s sentencing choices.

First Holding:

Under section 136.2, when the court has a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, the court is authorized to issue a restraining order. Orders made under section 136.2 are operative only during the pendency of criminal proceedings and as prejudgment orders. The only purpose of a section 136.2 protective order is to protect victims and witnesses in connection with the criminal proceeding in which the restraining order is issued in order to allow participation without fear of reprisal.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324–1325

People v. Ponce (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 378, 383, 384 [Where the Legislature authorizes a specific variety of available procedures, the courts should use them and should normally refrain from exercising their inherent powers to invent alternatives.]

Second Holding:

We also observe that courts must, at the time of sentencing for certain crimes, consider issuing a protective order prohibiting a defendant from contacting a victim. None of these other statutes are applicable in this matter. The order issued against the defendant therefore transcended the authorization of section 136.2 and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

PEN 273.5

PEN 646.9(k)

People v. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 153, 160
We review the trial court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. Under this standard of review, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

Authority:
People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847

Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711–712

Third Holding:

To prove an abuse of discretion, the burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review

Authority:

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a sentencing court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Section 1170(b)(6) does not mandate a presumption in favor of the lower term in every case in which the defendant generally falls under one of the categories enumerated in the subdivision. Rather, the statute is clear that childhood trauma (or one of the other two categories in subdivision (b)(6)) must be a contributing factor to the offense in order to qualify for a presumption of the low term in sentencing. On this record, we cannot say that the court failed to consider section 1170(b)(6), or that its decision to impose the middle term notwithstanding the provision was so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 988, 991 [In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.]

People v. Hilburn (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 189, 204, fn. 6

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983 [Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it]

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000807

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

 

Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000801

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in believing that the defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation. Remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

All defendants are eligible for probation, in the discretion of the sentencing court, unless a statute provides otherwise. Some statutes bar probation absolutely, while others provide that a defendant is ineligible except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would be served. Here, the trial court apparently relied on the probation report and defense counsel to conclude section 1203(e)(3) rendered the defendant ineligible for probation.

Authority:

People v. Aubrey (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 279, 282

Second Holding:

Section 1203(e), provides in relevant part, that except in unusual cases in which the interests of justice would best be served if the person is granted probation, probation shall not be granted to any person who willfully inflicted great bodily injury or torture in the perpetration of the crime of which that person has been convicted. By its terms, section 1203(e)(3) renders a defendant conditionally ineligible for probation only when there has been a finding the injury was willful, i.e., intentional.

Here, there was no such finding, and the People concede that the defendant’s no contest plea does not establish that she admitted to willfully inflicting great bodily injury on the victim. Thus, absent any additional findings by the trial court, section 1203(e) did not render her presumptively ineligible for probation, and the trial court erred in applying that presumption.

Authority:

PEN 1203(e)(3)

People v. Lewis (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 837, 854

Third Holding:

Where the sentencing court bases its determination to deny probation in significant part upon an erroneous impression of the defendant’s legal status, fundamental fairness requires that the defendant be afforded a new hearing and an informed, intelligent and just decision on the basis of the facts. Here, the record demonstrates the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion and may have relied upon the error to deny probation. A new sentencing hearing is therefore necessary for the trial court to consider the defendant’s probation request under the appropriate legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Ruiz (1975) 14 Cal.3d 163, 168

People v. Manriquez (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1614, 1620

People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 912 [where a sentence choice is based on an erroneous understanding of the law, the matter must be remanded for an informed determination]

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000798

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000789

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the trial court abused its discretion. It failed to follow the governing statute’s directions. Its conclusion that the defendant posed an unreasonable risk to public safety, as defined by section 1001.36(c)(4), was unsupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we issue the requested writ of mandate and direct the court to grant the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted section 1001.36 to create a diversion program for criminal defendants with diagnosed mental health disorders. Diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. By its terms, section 1001.36 was designed to encourage trial courts to broadly authorize pretrial mental health diversion, providing treatment for qualifying mental disorders that result in criminal behavior.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 887, 890

Second Holding:

The decision whether to grant diversion is a two-step process. First, the court determines if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements set forth in section 1001.36(b). Defendants are eligible if they have been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the criminal offense with which they are charged.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a) – (b)

Third Holding:

Second, the court determines if the defendant is suitable for diversion under the factors set forth in section 1001.36(c). Those factors are: (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s mental disorder would respond to treatment; (2) the defendant agrees to waive their speedy trial rights; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment requirements; and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined in sections 1170.18 and 667(e)(2)(C)(iv).

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a) and (c)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

Fourth Holding:

Finally, even when all eligibility and suitability factors are met, courts have discretion to deny mental health diversion. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 895-896

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 888

Fifth Holding:

Our review is for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1170.18, the Legislature has narrowly defined an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety to mean an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). The violent felonies encompassed in this definition are known as super strikes. The super strikes are murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, any serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, or any sexually violent offenses or sexual offense committed against minors under the age of 14.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

People v Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1150-1151

Seventh Holding:

By statute, when determining the risk of danger, t]he 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. A defendant who seeks diversion is not being sentenced, so the general sentencing objectives set forth in rule 4.410 of the California Rules of Court are inapplicable.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149

Eighth 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.

The trial court expressed that it could not know whether the defendant was going to commit a super strike, and based on his two violent incidents from 2007 and 2010, the trial court concluded that there was a danger that there was a likelihood that the defendant could commit a super strike, thereby permitting the trial court to exercise its residual discretion to deny diversion.

But the court misunderstood what was required. The plain language of the statute requires a finding that a defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike.

The statute does not, as the trial court suggested, require a prediction that a defendant will not, in fact, commit a super strike. The correct analysis thus requires assessing probabilities; not predicting outcomes, as the trial court incorrectly understood.

These are two distinct types of inquiry. Applying the correct standard to the record before us, we conclude the evidence is insubstantial that the defendant is too dangerous to be treated in the community on the ground that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike.

A trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its decision find no support in the evidence.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 998

Ninth Holding:

The only question that remains is whether further proceedings are required. We conclude they are not. The trial court found that the defendant satisfied all criteria for diversion except the public safety factor, leaving nothing further to be decided. The People do not argue otherwise. Under these circumstances, we will reverse the court’s order with directions to grant the defendant’s motion unless the People present changed circumstances that warrant rehearing.

Authority:

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1005

 

Discretion, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000786

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

By shifting the burden of proof from the People to appellant, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition to terminate his duty to register as a sex offender.

First Holding:

Before 2021, if an offender was required to register as a sex offender, they were required to register for life. Beginning on January 1, 2021, SB 384 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) restructured the sex offender registration requirement into three tiers: tier one, registrants must register for at least 10 years; tier two, for at least 20 years; and tier three, for their lifetimes.

Authority:

PEN 290(d)

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 190

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432

Second Holding:

Appellant is a tier two registrant who is required to register for at least 20 years. Provided the registrant meets certain criteria, including registering for the required minimum period, a registrant can petition the superior court to terminate the registration requirement.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)-(c)

Third Holding:

Upon receiving notice of a petition to terminate registration, the district attorney may object and present evidence demonstrating that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration.

The prosecutor has the burden of producing evidence to establish terminating the registration requirement would considerably raise the threat to society because the defendant is currently likely to reoffend. The trial court’s task is to assess whether the People have carried their burden of producing evidence establishing that requiring continued registration appreciably increases society’s safety.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Fourth Holding:

In making this determination, the trial court may consider the following seven factors: [(1)] the nature and facts of the registerable offense; (2) the age and number of victims; (3) whether any victim was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender for less than 24 hours); (4) criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registerable offense; (5) the time period during which the person has not reoffended; (6) successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; and (7) the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.

The trial court may base its determination upon declarations, affidavits, police reports, or any other evidence submitted by the parties which is reliable, material, and relevant.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)(3)

Fifth Holding:

The standard of review applied by an appellate court reviewing a trial court’s order on a petition for termination is abuse of discretion. The showing required to establish an abuse of discretion is as follows: To establish an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate the trial court’s decision fell outside the bounds of reason, i.e., was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.

The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling under review. The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious. A trial court abuses its discretion when its factual findings are not supported by the evidence, or its decision is based on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 433

Sixth Holding:

Section 290.5 required the prosecutor to prove that appellant was currently likely to reoffend and that community safety would be significantly enhanced by continued registration. Here, the trial court denied the petition, at least in part, due to the absence of evidence that appellant no longer posed the threat he did when he committed the registrable offenses. Doing so placed the burden on appellant, rather than on the prosecutor, to produce evidence of the current threat, if any, posed by appellant. This was error. We remand for a new hearing.

Authority:

PEN 290.5(a)(2)-(3)

People v. Thai (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 427, 432-433

People v. Franco (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 184, 192

Seventh Holding:

(Gary Note: The court proceeded to explain why the error was prejudicial, applying the Watson standard, based on facts specific to this defendant, and the details need not be recited in this summary.)

Authority:

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000759

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing on a petition for resentencing (the opinion does not state under which statute the petition was filed, but in the body of the opinion it mentions section 1172.1, under which various entities can recommend the recall of sentence and resentencing), the trial court denied the defendant’s request to reduce his kidnap for robbery conviction to the lesser included offense of false imprisonment, stating that it did not have discretion to do so. The court erred, as it did have the discretion. We remand for the court to exercise its discretion.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.1(a)(3)(B), the trial court may in the interest of justice vacate the defendant’s conviction and impose judgment on any necessarily included lesser offense or lesser related offense then resentence the defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment. Defendant thus asked the trial court at the hearing on his petition to reduce his conviction on count 2 from a kidnap to false imprisonment as the other counts in his sentencing were false imprisonment. The trial court viewed the request as a challenge to the evidence and declined to revisit the evidence.

The court indicated that it did not have the discretion to do anything but impose the sentence on the count of conviction. The court’s comments confirm that it was unaware it had the discretion under section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(3)(B) to reduce defendant’s kidnapping-for-robbery conviction on count 2 to false imprisonment and resentence him to a reduced term for that offense. The trial court thus abused its sentencing discretion.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(3)(B)

In re White (2020) 9 Cal.5th 455, 470

Second Holding:

When, as here, the trial court is unaware of its sentencing discretion, we must remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have made the same decision if it had been aware of its discretion. The record does not indicate that. If anything, it indicates that the trial court might have imposed a lesser sentence on count 2 if it believed it had the discretion to do so. We therefore remand for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 424

People v. Terwilligar (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 585, 601

People v. Moseley (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874

People v. Marcus (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 201, 214 [Because there are multiple counts and discretionary decisions at play, the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme and reconsider all sentencing choices.]

People v. Byucks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000756

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the court erred in believing that it had no discretion to consider defendant’s motion pursuant to dismiss prior serious felony enhancements under Romero. The matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a full resentencing hearing at which the court must consider defendant’s Romero motion.

First Holding:

In 2019, in an effort to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration, the Legislature passed SB 136, which amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior crimes except for sexually violent offenses as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

In 2021, SB 483 made this change retroactive. It enacted what is now Penal Code section 1172.75, which states that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

Second Holding:

A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. To facilitate the process, the statute directs California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a).

Upon receiving that information, the sentencing court must review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in subdivision (a). If the court determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. The statute provides separate deadlines for identification, review, and resentencing of individuals currently serving a sentence based on the enhancement and all other individuals.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75(d) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing once a sentence has been recalled. As relevant here, subdivision (d) specifies: that resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.

Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed. The trial court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council as well as any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

In addition, the court may consider postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age, time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Fourth Holding:

Section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the underlying judgment includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed before January 1, 2020, regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead stayed. The trial court has the authority to exercise its discretion under section 1385(a) and Romero to strike any or all of defendant’s strike priors after recalling his sentence and for the purpose of resentencing him under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 364

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400

People v. Dowdy (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1, 9-13

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000749

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying mental health diversion by basing its denial on findings not supported by substantial evidence and by exercising its discretion in a manner inconsistent with the principles and purpose of the statute.

(Gary’s note: The conclusion that the court abused its discretion relied extensively on facts reviewed by the Court of Appeal. These summaries are designed more to recite the various principles than to ferret out exactly how the principles achieved the result in the particular case. Sometimes it is obvious, but many times the outcome is very fact-dependent. Since these unpublished opinions cannot be cited as authority, it serves little purpose to recite the extensive details that led to the result in a particular case.)

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying 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 bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 135

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1080

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448

Second Holding:

Mental health diversion under section 1001.36 requires the trial court to find the defendant both eligible for diversion and suitable for the program. A defendant is eligible for mental health diversion if both of the following criteria are met: (1) defendant presents evidence he or she has been diagnosed with a mental disorder by a qualified mental health expert, identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMD), within the last five years and (2) defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A court may consider any relevant and credible evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports, preliminary hearing transcripts, witness statements, statements by the defendant’s mental health treatment provider, medical records, records or reports by qualified medical experts, or evidence that the defendant displayed symptoms consistent with the relevant mental disorder at or near the time of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

Third Holding:

As to suitability, each of the following criteria must be met: (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 their 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.

In determining whether the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the court 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)

Fourth Holding:

Even where defendants make a prima facie showing that they meet all the express statutory requirements, the court may still exercise its discretion to deny diversion. This residual discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 134-135

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891 [court’s discretion must be informed by legal principles and purpose of statute]

People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977, superseded by statute on other grounds as indicated in People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108 [all exercises of legal discretion must be grounded in reasoned judgment and guided by legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue]

Fifth Holding:

The stated purpose of mental health diversion is to keep people with mental disorders from entering and reentering the criminal justice system while protecting public safety, to give counties discretion in developing and implementing diversion across a continuum of care settings, and to provide mental health rehabilitative services. 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.

A trial court’s denial of mental health diversion using its residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved. 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, 691

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892-893

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 138

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891-892

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401