Tag Archives: Discretion

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]

Eighth Amendment, Sentencing

Case 000800

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is not clear if the court understood the scope of its sentencing authority. The record is ambiguous as to whether the court found the sentence constitutionally permissible or believed it was obligated to impose the sentence regardless of any constitutional concerns. We accordingly reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

The One Strike law mandates a sentence of 15 or 25 years to life for certain designated sexual offenses committed under specified aggravating circumstances. A lewd or lascivious act under section 288(a) is a qualifying sexual offense. The default sentence is 15 years to life if the jury has found the crime was committed under one of the circumstances listed in subdivision (e) of the One Strike law, among which is the multiple victim circumstance. But if multiple victims are under the age of 14 years old, the sentence is 25 years to life. A court shall not strike any allegation, admission, or finding of any of the circumstances specified in subdivision (e) for any person who is subject to punishment under the One Strike law.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 713

Second Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant contends a sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the judicial inquiry commences with great deference to the Legislature. Yet legislative authority remains ultimately circumscribed by the constitutional provision forbidding the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment. As pertinent here, article I, section 17, of the California Constitution proscribes cruel or unusual punishment. A prison sentence violates this proscription if it is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Martinez (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 489, 494

In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 414, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Palmer (2021) 10 Cal.5th 959.

People v. Christensen (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 781, 806

Third Holding:

Courts use a three-part test to determine if a particular sentence is disproportionate to the offense for which it is imposed. First, courts consider the nature of the offense and/or the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society. Second, courts compare the challenged punishment with punishments imposed for more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction. Finally, courts compare the challenged punishment with punishments imposed for the same offense in other jurisdictions.

Authority:

People v. Christensen (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 781, 806

In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 425-427

Fourth Holding:

A mandatory punishment provided by law may contravene constitutional principles and a court has the authority to intervene under such circumstances to prevent an unconstitutional punishment from being imposed. Here, it is not clear if the trial court was aware of its authority to not impose a life sentence under the One Strike law assuming it found the sentence amounted to cruel or unusual punishment. The court specifically stated it would not have imposed the mandated sentence if it had discretion. The court noted the prosecutor previously offered a non-life sentence, and the court lamented that defendant’s counsel did not represent him during settlement discussions because the court believed a life sentence could have been avoided.

But the court concluded that it didn’t find that that statute is cruel and unusual, and so that it had no choice but to give the sentence. The court later stated that it didn’t believe it is a cruel and unusual statute because there were multiple victims under the age of 14. Given the court’s indication that it viewed a different sentence as more appropriate, it is not clear if the court merely found the statute was not cruel and unusual on its face or if it found the administration of the sentence as applied to defendant was not cruel and unusual punishment. Under these circumstances, remand is appropriate.

We accordingly remand the matter for the trial court to clarify whether the mandated statutory sentence as applied to defendant constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. If the court finds the mandated statutory sentence is constitutional, it may impose the sentence. If the court finds the mandated statutory sentence is unconstitutional, it may exercise its authority to impose a different sentence. In doing so, we express no opinion as to whether the mandated statutory sentence is cruel or unusual punishment as applied to defendant. The trial court is free to clarify its holding on remand.

Authority:

People v. Felix (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 994, 999

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