Category Archives: Standard of review

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000618

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We will reverse the conviction and remand for the trial court to reconsider defendant’s suitability for mental health diversion according to the factors in section 1001.36(c) and defendant’s current circumstances. To the extent the court exercises its residual discretion under section 1001.36(a), it must take into account the Legislature’s intent and the statute’s underlying purposes.

Although we express no opinion as to how the court should decide the matter on remand, we note that the suitability inquiry must be informed not only by defendant’s past performance but also by his present circumstances and prospects for diversion compliance.

First Holding:

Since 2018, section 1001.36 has afforded trial courts discretion to grant criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders pretrial diversion to receive mental health treatment. Diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The express purpose of the legislation was to increase diversion of eligible individuals, and legislative amendments have only confirmed the Legislature’s desire to expand mental health treatment through diversion.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 119

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 890-891

Second Holding:

As currently enacted, a defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental health disorder which was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. If a defendant is found eligible for mental health diversion, a trial court must also consider whether the defendant is suitable for diversion.

According to the statute, a defendant is suitable for diversion if, in the opinion of a mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms would respond to treatment; the defendant consents to diversion and waives his right to a speedy trial; the defendant agrees to comply with treatment; and the defendant will not pose an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as defined in section 1170.18.

Section 1170.18 defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit one of certain enumerated violent felonies, known colloquially as “super strikes.”

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

PEN 1170.18

Third Holding:

Even if a defendant meets the enumerated suitability criteria, a trial court retains discretion to deny diversion. But that residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. We review a decision to deny diversion for abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 887, 888, 891

Fourth Holding:

We see no substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an unsuitability finding as defined under the statute. Section 1001.36(c) prescribes specific suitability factors and does not expressly contemplate a finding of unsuitability based on other factors not identified in the statute. We acknowledge it is possible to construe the court’s finding of unsuitability as an exercise of its residual discretion under section 1001.36(a).

But the only reasoning articulated by the court involved defendant’s criminal history and past failures to appear (which could themselves have been connected to a mental health disorder), his past difficulties complying with treatment (notwithstanding the evaluators’ conclusions about his prospects for future treatment), and the circumstances of the charged offense. The trial court’s statement of the reasons for its decision thus did not reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute and explain why diversion would not meet those goals.

Authority:

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

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000617

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The petitioner unsuccessfully moved for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. In petitioning this court for a writ of mandate, the petitioner contends that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible on six counts and eligible but unsuitable on the seventh count. We agree. We therefore grant the petition and direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion for mental health diversion and hold a new hearing on the motion.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted section 1001.36 to create a program of pretrial diversion 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.

The express purpose of this legislation was to increase diversion of such individuals based on concerns that incarceration only serves to aggravate their preexisting conditions and does little to deter future lawlessness. Successful mental health treatment, in contrast, both helps the individual and makes the community safer. More recent amendments have only confirmed the Legislature’s desire to expand mental health treatment through diversion.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 890-891

Second Holding:

Effective January 1, 2023, mental health diversion requires trial court findings that the defendant is both eligible for diversion and suitable for the program. The criteria for each are specific in the statute.

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.

They are suitable if: (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

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

Third Holding:

A defendant’s eligibility no longer turned on findings to the court’s satisfaction. Rather, defendants are generally eligible if they have been diagnosed with a recognized mental disorder. Beyond that, the amended statute creates a presumption that the defendant’s diagnosed mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged crime.

The court is directed to find a causal connection unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. In practical terms, following the 2022 amendments, defendants with a proper mental health diagnosis will seldom be ineligible for diversion. The more difficult question will be determining whether they are suitable.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

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

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 490

Fourth Holding:

We review for substantial evidence a court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that a mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or constributing factor. We consider whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)(2)

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

Fifth Holding:

Of the four factors set forth in the statute regarding suitability, only the fourth necessitates a trial court finding–that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community. But that risk is severely limited by incorporation of sections 1170.18 and 667(e)(2)(C)(iv) as the definition of unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and the list of felonies conviction of which would preclude eligibility.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

PEN 1170.18

PEN 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891-892

Sixth 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. 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. 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:

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

Seventh Holding:

To the extent the court’s finding of unsuitability could be based on any of the four eligibility factors, it is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

Flareau v. Superior Court of Riverside County (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 681, 690 [when reviewing the trial court’s suitability finding, we must determine whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings concerning the four suitability factors]

Eighth Holding:

The People argue that the trial court’s suitability finding was instead its use of its residual discretion. If that is the case, however, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the underlying purposes of section 1001.36 or explain why diversion would not meet those goals.

Authority:

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

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000613

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In decided the transfer the juvenile’s case to adult court, the court erred in evaluating whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and based its decision at least in part on unreliable data presented by a prosecution witness. We remand for the juvenile court to reconsider the second criterion under section 707(a)(3)(B), consistent with this opinion, whetherthe minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the court’s jurisdiction.

In addition, the court is to make a finding whether, in light of all five statutory criteria, the People have met their burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the minor. is not amenable to rehabilitation.

First Holding:

Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(1), when a minor 16 years or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecution may make a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. The prosecution bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

The clear and convincing evidence standard demands a degree of certainty greater than that involved with the preponderance standard, but less than what is required by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt Where clear and convincing proof is required, the proponent must convince the jury or judge that it is highly probable that the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(1)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211 and fn. 2

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Second Holding:

There are five criteria set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 that a court is required to consider in deciding whether a minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, including ((1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) the minor’s previous delinquent history; (4) success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.

For each of these five criteria, section 707 provides a nonexhaustive mandatory list of factors to which a juvenile court shall give weight in evaluating the criterion.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)(A)-(E)

Third Holding:

Under the second factor, the court must focus on whether there is enough time to rehabilitate the minor while the minor is still eligible to remain under juvenile court jurisdiction.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 166

Fourth Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. 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 juvenile court’s findings with respect to each of section 707’s five criteria are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. In conducting substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings.

The juvenile court’s ultimate finding that a minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction is likewise reviewed for substantial evidence.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160

People v. Cardenas (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 102, 119

Fifth Holding:

Because the juvenile court must make these findings by clear and convincing evidence, we review its findings by determining whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by the clear and convincing evidence standard. The juvenile] court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 161-162

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211

Duty of the court, Jury instructions, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000611

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to instruct the jury about how a defendant who is an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense.

First Holding:

The defendant’s defense was self-defense, and the trial court accordingly instructed the jury on perfect and imperfect self-defense under CALCRIM No. 505. Over his objection, the trial court also instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471 regarding an initial aggressor’s right to self-defense. However, the trial court omitted language from CALCRIM No. 3471 about how an initial aggressor can regain the right to self-defense. Omission of that language was prejudicial error. Whether a trial court properly instructed a jury is a question of law that we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210

Second Holding:

A trial court in a criminal case must instruct on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected to the facts before the court and are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. This includes a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on an affirmative defense if it appears the defendant is relying on such a defense or if substantial evidence supports it and it is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.

Authority:

People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021

People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 469

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

Third Holding:

It is error to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence of reasonable, credible value sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury. In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39–40

People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129

People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331

People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 835

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982

Fourth Holding:

As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends the defendant forfeited his contention that it was error to omit the language on how an initial aggressor can regain his right to self defense, because he failed to ask the trial court to include the omitted language. Assuming forfeiture applies, we nonetheless may decline to apply it if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Because the contention affects the defendant’s substantial rights, we consider it.

Authority:

PEN 1259

People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 671 [party may not complain on appeal that instruction correct in law and responsive to evidence was too general or incomplete in absence of request for clarifying language]

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

Fifth Holding:

When a defendant engages in simple assault or trespass and his opponent responds with deadly force so suddenly that the person cannot withdraw, a defendant may immediately use deadly force in self-defense. The qualification in the language omitted from the jury instruction thus applies where the defendant commits a simple assault. But if one makes a felonious assault upon another, or has created appearances justifying the other to launch a deadly counterattack in self-defense, the original assailant cannot slay his adversary in self-defense unless he has first, in good faith, declined further combat, and has fairly notified him that he has abandoned the affray.

Authority:

People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 301

People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 626–627

People v. Hecker (1895) 109 Cal. 451, 464 [Where one is the first wrongdoer, but his unlawful act is not felonious, as a simple assault upon the person of another, or a mere trespass upon his property, even though forcible, and this unlawful act is met by a counter assault of a deadly character, the right of self-defense to the first wrongdoer is not lost]

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949

People v. Gleghorn (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 196, 201

People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 249-250 [exception did not apply where defendant approached victim with cocked gun]

Sixth Holding:

We apply the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in Chapman to determine whether the error merits reversal. The Chapman standard requires us to determine whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent the error. We must reverse the conviction under that standard unless we conclude that no rational juror who made the findings reflected in the verdict and heard the evidence at trial court could have had a reasonable doubt regarding the findings necessary to convict the defendant, absent the instructional error.

Authority:

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

People v. Quach (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 294, 303

People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 953

People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831

People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237, 244

Seventh Holding:

Simple assault requires an act that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of physical force to another person, and the crime does not require actual physical injury or contact to the victim.

Authority:

People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 503

Eighth Holding:

An instruction is inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case if it requires acknowledging, if only inferentially, existence of facts which defendant otherwise denied. The language omitted from the instruction was not inconsistent with the defendant’s defense.

Authority:

People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1168–1169

People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982–983 [trial court has no duty to instruct on affirmative defense inconsistent with defendant’s theory of case]

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000610

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erroneously believed that the defendant was categorically ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because he was serving an indeterminate sentence under the “Three Strikes” law. Because the record does not clearly indicate that the court would have made the same decision had it been aware of the full scope of its resentencing power and discretion, we reverse and remand the matter with directions for the court to conduct a full resentencing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Once the trial court confirms that the underlying judgment includes an invalid prior prison term enhancement, the court must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. A defendant who is eligible for relief under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 667.5

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3

Second Holding:

Section 1172.75(d) establishes several parameters for resentencing.

First, the resentencing 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.

Second, the court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply 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.

Third, the court may consider postconviction factors that speak to whether continued incarceration remains in the interest of justice, such as the defendant’s physical condition and records of discipline and rehabilitation while incarcerated.

Finally, unless the court originally imposed the upper term, the court may not impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and those facts have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Third Holding:

A trial court has the authority to exercise its discretion under section 1385(a) and Romero to strike any or all of a defendant’s strike priors after recalling his sentence and for the purposes of resentencing him under section 1172.75. As the court in Rogers explained, because a trial court’s power under section 1385(a) to dismiss or strike a strike prior is independent of either the Three Strikes law or the subsequent Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either.

Authority:

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

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 362, 364

Fourth Holding:

Where, as here, a trial court sentences a defendant without being aware of the full scope of its sentencing discretion, remand is required to allow the court to fully exercise that discretion unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same decision had it been aware of the scope of its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391