Category Archives: Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Amelioration, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000833

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s true findings on three of the four strike priors and three of the four prior serious felony enhancements must be vacated and the matter remanded to the court for any retrial of these allegations, because there is insufficient evidence to support the finding defendant’s three 2016 convictions qualify as serious or violent felonies for purposes of three of the four strike priors and three of the four prior serious felony enhancements under the 2022 amendments to section 186.22 enacted by AB 333.

First Holding:

Under the Three Strikes law, defendants previously convicted of serious or violent felonies are subject to increased prison terms: if a defendant has one prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, the defendant’s term of imprisonment is doubled, and if a defendant has two or more such strike priors, the defendant may receive life imprisonment.

The Three Strikes law defines “serious or violent” felony to include any offense defined as a serious felony under section 1192.7(a). Section 1192.7 defines “serious felony” to include, among other things, any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22.

Authority:

PEN 1170.12

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

Second Holding:

Section 186.22(a) makes it unlawful to actively participate in a criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in, or have engaged in, a pattern of criminal gang activity, and to willfully promote, further, or assist in felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.

Section 186.22(b) provides for enhancements if a person commits a felony for the benefit of such a gang. Section 186.22 also defines the terms criminal street gang and pattern of criminal gang activity as well as benefitting a gang.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang, the definition of a pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang.

First, it narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, whereas former section 186.22(f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a ‘criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern that have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offense commonly benefitted a criminal street gang and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. Moreover, because these changes are ameliorative in nature, they apply to nonfinal judgments on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206

Fourth Holding:

Fletcher held that, where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Whether a prior conviction was for an offense that constitutes a felony violation of section 186.22 is determined by applying the current version of section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 607

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, a reviewing court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the judgment to ascertain whether it is supported by substantial evidence. In other words, the reviewing court determines whether a rational trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the elements of the sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The People must prove all elements of an alleged sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the mere fact of conviction under a particular statute does not prove the offense was a serious felony, otherwise admissible evidence from the entire record of the conviction may be examined to resolve the issue.

Authority:

People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1082, 1083

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1067

Sixth Holding:

The inquiry concerning whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony is a determination regarding the nature or basis of the defendant’s prior conviction—specifically, whether that conviction qualified as a conviction of a serious felony.

If the prior conviction was for an offense that can be committed in multiple ways, and the record of the conviction does not disclose how the offense was committed, a court must presume the conviction was for the least serious form of the offense.

In such a case, if the statute under which the prior conviction occurred could be violated in a way that does not qualify for the alleged enhancement, the evidence is thus insufficient, and the People have failed in their burden.

Authority:

People v. McGee (2006) 38 Cal.4th 682, 706

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065 (superseded by statute on another ground, as stated in People v. Frahs (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 784, 795)

Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000828

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The Trial Court Erred by Failing to Instruct on the Lesser Included Offense of Nonforcible Lewd Acts as to Count 8.

First Holding:

A trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses, even in the absence of a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

Second Holding:

On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense. Where a trial court has erred in failing to instruct on a lesser included offense, we review for prejudice under the standard set forth in Watson. Under this standard, the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense is not subject to reversal unless it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error.

Authority:

People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705

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

People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 955

Third Holding:

Nonforcible lewd act under section 288(a), is a lesser included offense of forcible lewd act under section 288(b)(1). The crimes are distinguishable in that forcible lewd act requires the defendant to have committed the crime by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear.

Authority:

People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408, 421

People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1015, 1026

Fourth Holding:

In this context, force means physical force substantially different from or substantially greater than that necessary to accomplish the act itself. Fear has been defined as (1) A feeling of alarm or disquiet caused by the expectation of danger, pain, disaster, or the like; terror; dread; apprehension and (2) Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.

And duress as used in this context means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to (1) perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed or, (2) acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted.

Authority:

People v. Cochran (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 8, 13, disapproved on another ground in People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 248, fn. 12

People v. Cardenas (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 927, 939–940

Fifth Holding:

On this record, there is simply no evidence that the defendant employed the requisite force, duress, or fear to commit the forcible lewd act charged in count 8.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1319–1321

Sixth Holding:

Consequently, we must reverse the judgment and conviction for forcible lewd act under section 288(b)(1), as charged in count 8. Under settled law, the judgment will be modified to reflect a conviction for nonforcible lewd act under section 288(a), unless the People elect to retry the defendant on the greater charge and are successful.

Authority:

People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3d 107, 118

Seventh Holding:

The federal and state prohibitions against ex post facto laws apply to any statute that punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was not a crime when done or that inflicts greater punishment than the applicable law when the crime was committed.

It is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the charged offenses occurred on or after the effective date of the statute providing for the defendant’s punishment. When the evidence at trial does not establish that fact, the defendant is entitled to be sentenced under the formerly applicable statutes even if he raised no objection in the trial court.

And, where the prosecutor failed to establish at trial when the charged acts occurred, it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to review the record and select among acts that occurred before and after that date, or to infer that certain acts probably occurred after that date.

In sum, as to counts 8 and 10, the prosecution failed to present unambiguous evidence that the acts underlying these counts occurred after the law increasing the sentence range took effect. Given the ambiguity, the trial court was not permitted to impose the harsher penalty under the revised law as to these counts.

The defendant’s 10-year sentences on counts 8 and 10 therefore violate the ex post facto clause and resentencing is required on these counts. At resentencing, as to counts 8 and 10, the court must apply the sentencing provisions applicable before the statute was amended to increase the sentence range.

Authority:

People v. Hiscox (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 253, 256, 261

Eighth Holding:

Because we conclude that the judgment must be reversed in part and this action must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, the defendant will ultimately be entitled to full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 [Although the Court of Appeal’s prior remand order was for resentencing on the modified convictions only, we believe a remand for a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.]

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000810

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated section 654 by imposing consecutive prison terms for the vandalism and burglary convictions because they arose from the same course of conduct. The vandalism consisted of using a drill drill and crowbar to take the door off its hinges to gain entry as part of the burglary.

First Holding:

Section 654(a) provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. Thus, the statute bars multiple punishments for a single act that violates more than one criminal statute, and for multiple acts where those acts comprise an indivisible course of conduct incidental to a single criminal objective and intent.

Authority:

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208

Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 19

Second Holding:

When multiple offenses are committed during a course of criminal conduct deemed indivisible, the offenses are treated as only one punishable act. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible depends on the intent and objective of the actor.

If all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, the defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.

If, however, the defendant entertained multiple criminal objectives that were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for independent violations committed in pursuit of each objective even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 637, 639

Third Holding:

Whether the defendant harbored separate objectives during a course of criminal conduct is primarily a question of fact for the trial court. We review a challenge under section 654 for substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination. We review the trial court’s determination in the light most favorable to the respondent and presume the existence of every fact the trial court could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162

People v. Avalos (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1583

People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1336–1337

People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1143

Fourth Holding:

However, a decision supported by a mere scintilla of evidence need not be affirmed on appeal. Although substantial evidence may consist of inferences, those inferences must be products of logic and reason and must be based on the evidence. Inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding. The ultimate test is whether a reasonable trier of fact would make the challenged ruling considering the whole record.

Authority:

In re James R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 129, 135

Fifth Holding:

The failure of defense counsel to object to the court’s decision not to stay the punishment does not forfeit. the issue. The waiver doctrine does not apply to questions involving the applicability of section 654. Errors in the applicability of section 654 are corrected on appeal regardless of whether the point was raised by objection in the trial court or assigned as error on appeal. This is because a sentence that is not authorized by law exceeds the jurisdiction of the court.

Authority:

People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 550, fn. 3

People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1120

Sixth Holding:

There was no evidence that the defendant harbored separated objectives.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335 [We have traditionally observed that if all of the offenses were merely incidental to, or were the means of accomplishing or facilitating one objective, defendant may be found to have harbored a single intent and therefore may be punished only once.]

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it fails to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment in several respects. In a criminal case, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that constitutes the judgment. Where, as here, a discrepancy exists between the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

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

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 893

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 963, 967

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