Diversion - Mental Health

PC 1054.3(b)(1) does not authorize a court-ordered prosecution-requested mental examination of the defendant when the defendant requests mental health diversion. In consolidated writ proceedings, the Court of Appeal held that the trial courts erred in ordering prosecution-requested mental examinations when the defendants requested diversion under PC 1101.36.  PC 1054.3(b)(1) authorizes a court-ordered prosecution-requested mental examination only when a defendant places his or her mental state in issue for trial through expert testimony. The plain language of the statute, the surrounding discovery scheme, and the legislative history of AB 1516 confine the statute to trial.

The full opinion is on the court’s…

The Court of Appeal holds that a trial court has discretion to impose reasonable rehabilitative probationary conditions, such as a search condition, on a defendant who is granted mental health diversion under PC 1001.36, during the diversionary period.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:…

The prosecution need not supply the evidence the trial court relies on in finding the PC 1001.36 presumption that a defendant's mental disorder contributed to his offense has been rebutted. Instead, contrary to defendant’s claim that People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485 held otherwise, a court may properly find the presumption rebutted based on "any relevant and credible evidence" before it (PC 1001.36(b)(2)). Here, substantial evidence from the preliminary hearing transcript and defense expert report supported finding defendant ineligible.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

The trial court abused its residual discretion under PC 1001.36.  The trial court found defendant would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, but denied mental health diversion based on the defendant's criminal history, the circumstances of the current offenses, and defendant's alcohol and drug use. Because the findings were unsupported by substantial evidence, were inconsistent with legislative policy, and evinced a misunderstanding of the diversion program, the denial was an abuse of discretion.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

The trial court's finding that appellant was not eligible for mental health diversion (PC 1001.36) was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court denied appellant’s request for mental health diversion, finding that appellant’s mental health disorders were not a factor in the charged offenses and appellant would pose an unreasonable danger to public safety. Where, as here, an appeal is premised upon facts expressly not credited by the trial court, i.e., an adverse factual finding, the appeal is frivolous; while not finding whether the current appeal was “frivolous,” the Court of Appeal summarily decided appellant’s contentions were without merit.

[Editor's…

The trial court abused its residual discretion in denying mental health diversion (PC 1001.36) on the basis that appellant had motivation other than mental illness to commit the underlying offense. The trial court denied defendant’s request for mental health diversion because it found that defendant’s charged  offenses related to an altercation with his sister had more to do with his sister antagonizing him rather than his various mental diagnoses. The trial court abused its residual discretion because nothing in PC 1001.36 suggests that an otherwise qualified defendant can be denied diversion because there was a more motivating, causal, or contributing…