Tag Archives: Diversion

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000672

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mental health diversion because substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined under section 1001.36.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted sections 1001.35 and 1001.36 to create a pretrial diversion program for defendants with certain mental health disorders. Pretrial diversion allows for the suspension of criminal proceedings and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion of mental health treatment. The statute expressly promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 133

Second Holding:

As presently enacted, section 1001.36(b) provides that a defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if two criteria are met.

First, the defendant has been diagnosed with a specified mental disorder within the last five years by a qualified mental health expert.

Second, the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense. 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:

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Third Holding:

If a defendant meets these eligibility requirements, the court also must find that the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion based on satisfaction of the following criteria: (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 the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Fourth Holding:

Section 1170.18 defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). That provision of section 667 sets forth eight categories of offenses that are commonly referred to as “super strikes,” including any homicide offense, and including any attempted homicide offense, defined in sections 187 to 191.5, inclusive.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449 [noting that the “super strikes” include murder and attempted murder]

Fifth Holding:

Ultimately, however, diversion under section 1001.36 is discretionary, not mandatory, even if all the statutory requirements are met.

Authority:

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

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

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial 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.

In addition, we review a trial court’s factual findings in support of its ruling for substantial evidence.

On appeal, 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. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

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

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

Seventh Holding:

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. Further, in the guise of exercising its residual discretion, a court is not permitted to redefine public safety in a manner inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed intent.

Authority:

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

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000661

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an improper legal standard when determining whether the defendant was eligible for mental health diversion, made findings regarding his eligibility that were not supported by the evidence, and failed to provide a basis for the exercise of its residual discretion to deny his motion. We accordingly conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings on the defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 states that a trial court may, in its discretion, and after considering the positions of the defense and prosecution, grant pretrial diversion to a defendant pursuant to this section if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements for pretrial diversion set forth in subdivision (b) and the court determines that the defendant is suitable for that diversion under the factors set forth in subdivision (c).

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(a)

Second Holding:

The statute identifies two eligibility requirements: (1) in the last five years the defendant has been diagnosed with or treated for “a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial personality disorder and pedophilia” (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(1)); and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)(2)

Third Holding:

The statute identifies four suitability criteria: (1) a qualified mental health expert has opined that 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 (if mentally competent) consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant (if mentally competent) 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c

Fourth Holding:

If 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 1001.36f)(1) read as a whole appears to contemplate an ongoing assessment to assure that defendants will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions as part of the diversion program.

Authority:

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

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

Fifth 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

Sixth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on 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:

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Seventh Holding:

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.

When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is 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. The issue before us is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found it highly probable that the defendant’s mental disorder was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to his involvement in the alleged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 402

Eighth Holding:

Reviewing courts have consistently made clear that the legislation’s aim is for diversion to apply as broadly as possible so as to increase the provision of mental health treatment for the betterment of individuals and society as a whole. “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.”

Authority:

People v. Cabalar (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 41, 58

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

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, Standard of review

Case 000586

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in finding the defendant unsuitable for mental health diversion, citing an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

First Holding:

The primary goal of section 1001.36 is to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. Advances in psychology and neuroscience inform this goal.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Ct. (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 898

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36 narrowly defines an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as requiring an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit one of several statutorily enumerated violent felonies colloquially known as super strikes.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

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

Third Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision on whether to grant section 1001.36 diversion for abuse of discretion. In this context, a court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

Fourth Holding:

In concluding that the defendant posed such a danger, the court found she was likely to continue selling fentanyl, that the fentanyl she sold was likely to kill someone, and that she could be prosecuted for such a death on a theory of implied malice murder. According to the court, this established an unreasonable risk that the defendant would commit a super strike—murder—and the court denied diversion.

The court’s reasoning rests on purely speculative factual findings unsupported by any evidence. Speculation is not evidence, less still substantial evidence. The court did not cite any other basis for denying diversion, nor do the People cite an alternative basis for affirming the court’s order. The court abused its discretion in denying diversion on this basis. Accordingly, we reverse.

Authority:

Wise v. DLA Piper LLP (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1188

People v. Ramon (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 843, 851

Discretion, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000578

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that placing the defendant on mental health diversion would present an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The denial of the request for diversion under section 1001.36 is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 gives trial courts the discretion to grant pretrial diversion for individuals suffering from certain mental health disorders. The statute defines pretrial diversion as the postponement of prosecution, either temporarily or permanently, at any point in the judicial process from the point at which the accused is charged until adjudication, to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment.

The maximum period of diversion is two years. If the defendant performs satisfactorily in diversion, then at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal proceedings at the time of the initial diversion, and the arrest upon which the diversion was based shall be deemed never to have occurred.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

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

Second Holding:

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 specified 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).

Only the public safety suitability requirement necessitates a trial court finding.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b) and (c)

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

Third Holding:

As used throughout the Penal Code, “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” means an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv), which numerates particularly serious or violent felonies, known colloquially as “super strikes.”

Super strikes include any homicide offense, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer or firefighter, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, or any serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death.

Authority:

PEN 1172.18

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 351

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892, fn. 4

Fourth 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 defendants will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions as part of the diversion program.

Authority:

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

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

Fifth 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.

Authority:

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

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

Wade v. Superior Court (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 694, 710

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001 [scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied]

Sixth Holding:

A trial court’s ruling on a motion for mental health diversion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a given defendant is a good candidate for mental health diversion. 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:

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

People v. Oneal (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 581, 588

People v. Curry (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 314, 324

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 840, 848–849

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

Seventh Holding:

Section 1001.36(e) provides that the hearing on a defendant’s eligibility and suitability shall be informal and may proceed on offers of proof, reliable hearsay, and argument of counsel. In general, the court will find hearsay evidence trustworthy when there are sufficient indicia of reliability. The court, however, may not rely on unsubstantiated or unreliable evidence.

Authority:

People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682, 689 [hearsay that bears a substantial guarantee of trustworthiness is admissible in probation revocation proceedings]

Discretion, Effective assistance of counsel, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 000558

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution amount is wrong, and the protective order is unauthorized.

First Holding:

Appellant contends changes to section 1001.36 that went into effect after she was denied pretrial diversion apply to her case. We agree. Appellant further contends this matter should be conditionally reversed and remanded so the trial court can exercise its discretion to determine her motion for pretrial diversion in light of the amendment. We disagree.

Appellant has forfeited this claim. Frahs, decided in 2020, made clear that recently enacted section 1001.36 applied in nonfinal cases. Thus, when the law was amended effective January 1, 2023, appellant should have known the amendments applied retroactively. Once the law was amended, appellant had more than three months before she pled and more than seven months before she was sentenced to seek reconsideration of the trial court’s denial of diversion. She did not.

Authority:

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 631-632

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 6

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 128 [failure to seek reconsideration excused where amendment to statute effective after entry of plea but only 10 days before sentencing]

Second Holding:

In order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of such deficient performance. The record is silent, however, why defense counsel failed to seek reconsideration under the amended law.

It is possible that counsel was unaware of the newly passed statute. It is also possible, however, that counsel had sound reasons not to pursue the issue. For example, appellant may have changed her mind and decided to refuse to accept the treatment required for participation in the diversion program. Because trial counsel’s reasons for not raising the issue are not readily apparent, the issue is more appropriately considered in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Authority:

People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 198

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-692

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267

People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s restitution order for abuse of discretion. We apply the substantial evidence standard in a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a factual finding necessary for a victim restitution order. Sentencing judges are given virtually unlimited discretion as to the kind of information they can consider and the source from whence it comes because a hearing to establish the amount of restitution does not require the formalities of other phases of a criminal prosecution. The court may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole. It may make a restitution order based on truncated evidence such as declarations or probation reports, business records, and checks.

Authority:

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663

People v. Jessee (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 501, 507

People v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1275

People v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 872, 898-899

Fourth Holding:

The total restitution awarded to the victim includes two computational errors. The court erroneously included a $4,520 attorney fees bill twice and included $880 for an unknown reason. We will correct those errors.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 854

Fifth Holding:

Section 136.2(i) authorizes a court to issue an order restraining a defendant for up to 10 years when the defendant has been convicted of a qualifying crime. Appellant’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under section 245 is not a qualifying crime under section 136(i). The court did not have statutory authority to issue the protective order, therefore, the order must be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000478

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Before jury selection, the defendant requested mental health diversion. The trial court denied the request as untimely. This was error. The judgment is conditionally reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to consider defendant’s application for mental health diversion under section 1001.36. If the trial court grants diversion and defendant successfully completes mental health diversion, the court shall dismiss the charges. If the court denies defendant’s application for mental health diversion, or if defendant does not successfully complete diversion, then the court shall reinstate the judgment and sentence.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health disorders. The trial court must find a defendant is both eligible and suitable for diversion.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

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

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. 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:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

Third Holding:

In a jury trial, to be timely, a request for diversion must be made before attachment of jeopardy. The defendant is deemed to have been placed in jeopardy when the jurors have been impaneled and sworn. Here, the jury had not been impaneled or sworn when defendant requested mental health diversion. The trial court abused its discretion in denying his unopposed request for mental health diversion solely on the ground that it was untimely.

Authority:

People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, 819

People v. Fields (1996) 13 Cal.4th 289, 299

Discretion, Elements of crime, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000468

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition for mental health diversion, and substantial evidence does not support its ineligibility finding. The court also erred by accepting a guilty to plea to conduct that is not criminal. We reverse defendant’s possession of marijuana conviction, conditionally vacate the remainder of defendant’s guilty pleas, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36 and this opinion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial diversion for criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders. To qualify, criminal defendants must show they are both eligible and suitable for the program. A defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if, within the last five years, a qualified mental health expert has diagnosed the defendant with a qualifying mental health disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which may only be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, casual factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. For purposes of the diversion statute, a qualified mental health expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert. The statute’s plain language does not limit a qualified mental health expert to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other medical doctor.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b), (f)

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

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

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 [appellate court interprets a statute to effectuate the law’s purpose, applying a plain and commonsense meaning to the statute’s text]

Second Holding:

A substance use disorder registered counselor must complete hundreds of hours of classroom education and supervised training regarding addiction counseling, at least over 2,000 hours of work providing counseling services in an alcohol or drug program, and must pass an examination confirming their skill and ability. Under these circumstances, a substance abuse disorder registered counselor possesses the knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to make a substance use disorder diagnosis under the statute.

Authority:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, sec. 13040(a)-(d)

Third Holding:

Where there has been a qualifying diagnosis, it is the People’s burden to overcome by clear and convincing evidence the statutory presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Here, the People did not present any evidence to support a finding that defendant’s substance use disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to his commission of the charged drug and firearm possession offenses. Argument by counsel is not evidence in the case and cannot be relied upon to support the trial court’s order.

Despite the lack of evidence, the trial court ruled, based on “common sense,” that possession for sale offenses like defendant’s could not be causally connected to a substance use disorder and that the Legislature could not have intended section 1001.36 to apply to possession of narcotics for sale cases because a vast majority of the felony cases before the court involved drugs. In essence, the trial court carved out a wholesale exception to mental health diversion for possession for sale offenses that does not appear in the plain text of the statute. This was error. It is a corollary to fundamental principles of separation of powers that courts must apply the statutes as written unless doing so would yield absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 491

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence showing defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses cannot satisfy the People’s burden to rebut the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391,404 [the absence of evidence proving that a 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 the petitioner’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses]

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687-689 [By finding the statutory presumption had been overcome by the lack of indication in the police reports that the defendant was suffering from the mental disorder at the time of a robbery, the trial court improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that her mental disorder contributed to the offense.]

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is 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. 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. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew and applied the law.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

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

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Sixth Holding:

It was error for the court to accept the defendant’s guilty plea to an act that was not criminal. The information alleged that he was in possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Possession of marijuana is not criminal unless it is of more than 28.5 grams. By accepting defendant’s guilty plea to conduct that is not criminal, and sentencing him for that offense, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we shall modify the judgment to vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence on that count.

Authority:

People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 395-396, 399 [conviction for conduct not prohibited by statute is void]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784-785 [the defendant could not have been guilty of violating Penal Code section 115 by attempting to file a forged instrument because, as a matter of law, the writing he was charged with and admitted forging, a death certificate, is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115]

Discretion, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case: 000392

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition seeking mental health diversion. We thus conditionally vacate defendant’s no contest plea, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. 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. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew the law and followed it. But where a court’s ruling clearly expresses the legal and factual basis for its resolution of controverted issues, an appellate court will not imply findings the trial court did not make.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384

Second Holding:

Section 1001.36(b)(1)(2) provides that a defendant is eligible for mental health diversion if (1) they present evidence that in the last five years they have been diagnosed by a qualified mental health expert with a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and (2) their mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Third Holding:

If a defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements in section 1001.36(b), the court then must consider whether the defendant is suitable for diversion based on the following criteria set forth in section 1001.36(c): (1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder that caused, contributed to, or motivated the defendant’s 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Fourth Holding:

A diversion order is expressly discretionary with the court, even when all of the criteria are met. However, this residual discretion must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law. 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. Legislative history confirms there is 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:

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

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

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 691

Fifth Holding:

The record shows that the trial court’s ruling failed to apply the correct legal standards to defendant’s diversion request. After finding defendant eligible, the court denied him diversion because he was unsuitable based on the determination that he targeted vulnerable people. This ruling rests on a legal error because the court did not apply the four statutory suitability criteria found in section 1001.36(c). Additionally, denial of mental health diversion using a court’s residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved.

Here, the trial court relied on its observation that defendant targeted vulnerable victims but failed to tie that observation to achieving the purposes of the statute, and the strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community. By applying the wrong legal standard, the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion.

Authority:

Grossmont Union High School Dist. v. Diego Plus Education Corp. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 552, 584 [trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it did not apply one of the essential components for deciding whether fees should be awarded under the applicable fee statute]

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

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 691

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

Discretion, Standard of review

Case: 000371

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court improperly denied the defendant’s request for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 by applying the wrong standard in determining that he did not satisfy the statute’s public safety requirement. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the judgment and remand to the trial court.

First Holding:

A trial court may grant a defendant pretrial mental health diversion if the defendant has a qualifying mental health disorder. The court has discretion to grant pretrial diversion if the defendant satisfies the eligibility requirements for pretrial diversion set forth in the statute and the court finds that the defendant is suitable for that diversion under the factors set forth in the statute. A defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if (1) the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental disorder; and (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 626–627

Second Holding:

For any defendant who satisfies the eligibility requirements, the court must then find the defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if all the following criteria are 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 the defendant’s right to a speedy trial; (3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; (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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Third Holding:

Section 1170.18, in turn, defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv). Thus, a trial court must determine whether the defendant is likely to commit an offense known colloquially as a “super strike.” Qualifying super strikes include murder, attempted murder, solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a police officer, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, and any serious or violent felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

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

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149, 1150-1151

People v. Bunas (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 840, 851, fn. 11

Fourth Holding:

Mental health diversion is discretionary, not mandatory, even if all the requirements are met. But this residual discretion must be exercised consistently with the principles and purpose of the law, which 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:

PEN 1001.36(a)

PEN 1001.35

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

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

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition for pretrial 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:

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

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448–449

Sixth Holding:

The trial court’s comments, coupled with the fact the court did not expressly find a likelihood that the defendant would commit a super strike, suggest the court was expanding the meaning of “public safety” in section 1001.36 beyond the likelihood that the defendant will commit a limited subset of violent felonies. This was improper.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896–897 [trial courts cannot create an alternative meaning of ‘public safety’ inconsistent with sec. 1001.36(c)(4)]

Seventh Holding:

We do not find the Watson standard of prejudice applicable here. Under the Watson test, an error is harmless unless it is reasonably probable the outcome would have been different in the absence of the error. The Watson standard is appropriate in circumstances where the trial court understood the nature of its discretion but, for example, relied on an improper factor in exercising that discretion or failed to state its reasoning. It does not apply where the court was unaware of the extent of its lawful authority in a particular context, because determining what choice the trial court is likely to make in the first instance is far more speculative.

Because the record suggests the trial court did not understand that its discretion in deciding the defendant’s motion was constrained by section 1001.36’s narrow definition of public safety, we cannot be confident that the court was aware of the scope of its discretion under section 1001.36. Defendants are entitled to decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion” of the court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers cannot exercise that informed discretion. The appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to remand unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. The Watson standard is thus inapplicable.

Authority:

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

People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 426

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 716

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

People v. Doron (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1, 9–10 [concluding remand was required under Gutierrez where trial court did not apply correct standard in denying defendant’s motion for mental health diversion]

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 774 [Gutierrez standard applied where trial court was unaware that its discretion to select a prison sentence was constrained by a presumption against the upper term]

Discretion, Standard of review

Case: 000294

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion when it found the defendant unsuitable for mental health diversion despite acknowledging he did not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a “super strike.”

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for defendants with qualifying mental health disorders.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36

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

Second Holding:

A trial court’s ruling on a request for mental health diversion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

Third 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. A trial court further abuses its discretion if its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

A defendant is suitable for mental health diversion based on satisfaction of the following criteria: (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 the defendant’s 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(1)-(4)

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Fifth Holding:

Under section 1170.18, an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety is an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a “super strike,” which includes any homicide or attempted homicide offense, any serious or violent felony punishable by life imprisonment or death, and sexually violent offenses.

Authority:

PEN 1170.18(c)

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

Sixth Holding:

A trial court may not deny diversion to an otherwise eligible defendant unless it finds the defendant is likely to commit one of these offenses. In making this determination, the trial 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.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)(4)

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 450

Seventh Holding:

The trial court found defendant unsuitable for mental health diversion despite acknowledging that he was not likely to commit a super strike offense. That acknowledgment was reasonable, given that defendant had never previously been convicted of a super strike offense and was not charged with a super strike in the underlying cases. Under the circumstances, there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion defendant was likely to commit a super strike.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 897

Eighth Holding:

To the extent the trial court was relying on defendant’s history of noncompliance with medication, self-medicating with methamphetamine, his unwillingness to obey court orders, and probation violations, this was also an error. None of these past personal flaws is a reason that the Legislature has identified as valid for denying mental health diversion. Further, none of these reasons is consistent with the underlying purpose of the mental health diversion statute, namely to provide treatment to break the cycle of criminal recidivism for those with diagnosed disorders. Given that the court’s rationale failed to justify its decision to deny defendant mental health diversion, we must vacate the trial court’s orders.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 897 [expanding the reasons to deny diversion is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the mental health diversion statute]E