The Court of Appeal holds that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant’s request for developmental disability diversion under PC 1001.20. The court reasons that the trial court erred by (1) concluding that there was no relationship between defendant’s disability and the charged offenses when the evidence supports the contrary; (2) mentioning the facts of the charged offenses multiple times without relating them to the question of whether appellant would benefit from diversion, and (3) relying on appellant’s unemployment and lack of assets to deny diversion. The court also found that the trial court did not satisfy its duties under PC 1001.20 because it failed to initiate the diversion process sua sponte and to ensure that the relevant agencies provided reports. The court found these errors were not harmless and conditionally reversed the judgment.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A168538M.PDF