The Court of Appeal finds the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant mental health diversion (PC 1001.36) based on appellant’s violent history, the violent nature of the crime, and the court’s reluctance to supervise appellant’s rehabilitation in place of a probation officer. PC 1001.36 defines the level of dangerousness that must be found to deny diversion – “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” – which specifically means a risk of committing a super strike. A court cannot dilute this requirement by using its residual discretion to deny diversion based on a lower level of dangerousness.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B338176.PDF