The Court of Appeal finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s request for mental health diversion under PC 1001.36. The Court found that although the trial court found appellant was “not suitable” for diversion, the trial court’s reasoning did not reflect consideration of suitability criteria. Rather the trial court’s reasoning was more properly framed under PC 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(i) in that it was not satisfied with the proposed treatment program because appellant failed to establish the proposed treatment plan was any different than the plan that originally failed to address his specialized health treatment needs.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C103388.PDF