Diversion

Finding a defendant unsuitable for misdemeanor diversion (PC 1001.95) based “solely on facts inherent” to the charged offense constitutes an abuse of discretion. Vehicle manslaughter is eligible for PC 1001.95 relief and denying diversion only because the defendant caused another’s death conflicts with legislative intent. The victim family’s preference for prosecution would also not constitute a valid alternative basis for denial. Writ relief granted because appeal after conviction is an inadequate remedy.

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

For misdemeanor pretrial military diversion, the defendant must show a “reasonable possibility” that he or she is suffering from a qualifying condition as a result of their military service. (PC 1001.80 (b).) Consistent with the statute’s language and legislative history, by requiring the defendant to show they “may be” suffering from a qualifying condition, the Legislature intended to impose a lower “reasonable possibility” burden of proof – lower than a preponderance of the evidence – thereby making it less burdensome to establish eligibility.

PC 1001.80 does not permit the trial court to rely on counsel’s statements to satisfy the burden of proof…

The trial court erred by finding that defendant needed a minimum of one year of service to be eligible for military pretrial diversion under PC 1001.80 and a county-wide memorandum of understanding (MOU). The one year of miliary service requirement in the MOU did not apply to military diversion, but to military treatment under a different section of the Penal Code. The court of appeal did not grant review on the validity of the MOU or whether the MOU could legally impose additional eligibility criteria.

Although PC 1001.80(b) does not use the word “suitable,”…

The trial court's denial of a request for military diversion was error where it applied the legal requirement for felony offenses, not misdemeanors. (PC 1001.80.) Defendant was charged with four misdemeanor DUI offenses. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for military diversion because there was no nexus between the incident and Defendant’s military service. (See PC 1001.80(c).) The trial court’s denial was error because this requirement was only necessary for granting diversion for felony offenses, not misdemeanors. The Court of Appeal granted the writ of mandate and remanded the case for the trial court to…

The trial court erred when it failed to conduct a misdemeanor diversion termination hearing under PC 1001.95. Defendant was placed on misdemeanor diversion after being charged with cannabis-related crimes based on his employment as security at an unlicensed cannabis store. The prosecution made a sufficient showing requiring an evidentiary hearing to terminate diversion by submitting a police report that showed defendant again working at an unlicensed cannabis store.
The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: