Skip to content
Name: People v. Landrine
Case #: H052071
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/20/2026

Mental health diversion statute (PC 1001.36) does not authorize trial courts to find satisfactory performance unless the defendant substantially performs the diversion requirements.  PC 1001.36 allows a trial court to dismiss the charges if a defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion, i.e., if defendant has (1) substantially complied with diversion; (2) avoided significant new law violations; and (3) has a plan for long-term mental health care. Here, even though the trial court found defendant made “amazing progress” in the past year after she was remanded into custody, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges where defendant committed…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Moore
Case #: A167918
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 08/09/2024

The Court of Appeal holds that defendant was required to obtain a certificate of probable cause in a probation revocation case where defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request PC 1001.36 pretrial mental health diversion. The court finds that its earlier decision to the contrary, People v. Hill (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1190, was implicitly abrogated by recent CA Supreme Court case People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791, which held that a PC 1001.36 request for diversion must be made before attachment of jeopardy at trial or entry of a plea, whichever comes first.

The full opinion is…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.M.
Case #: A153296
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Citation: 35 Cal.App.5th 999
Opinion Date: 05/31/2019

The mental health diversion law does not apply to juveniles in delinquency proceedings. J.M. was committed to DJJ following her admission to a felony allegation of torture (Pen. Code, § 206). While her appeal was pending, the new mental health diversion statute (Pen. Code, § 1001.36) went into effect on June 27, 2018. On appeal, J.M. argued that the case should be remanded so that the juvenile court can determine whether to grant her a mental health diversion under the new statute. Held: Affirmed (modified in other respects in unpublished portions of the opinion). Penal Code section 1001.35 declares the…

View Full Summary
Name: Hopkins v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Case #: B270503
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Citation: 2 Cal.App.5th 1275
Opinion Date: 09/01/2016

Pretrial diversion under Penal Code section 1001.80 for veteran charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) is not precluded by Vehicle Code section 23640, which bars pretrial diversion in DUI cases. Hopkins, a military veteran with PTSD, was charged with misdemeanor DUI. He moved for pretrial diversion under section 1001.80, which authorizes a trial court to grant pretrial diversion to active duty military members or veterans charged with misdemeanors who have service-connected disabilities. The trial court denied his request, reasoning that pretrial diversion was barred by section 23640, which precludes diversion in any DUI case. Hopkins sought writ relief.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. VanVleck
Case #: D069893
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Citation: Cal.App.5th
Opinion Date: 08/11/2016

Military diversion (Pen. Code, § 1001.80) is not available for defendants charged with driving under the influence (DUI) offenses (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, 23153). VanVleck, an active duty Marine, and Kluesner, an Army veteran, were charged with misdemeanor DUI offenses. In both cases, the trial courts granted military diversion, which is available where the defendant is charged with a misdemeanor, was or is a member of the military, and may be suffering from trauma or PTSD as a result of their service. The People appealed, arguing that Vehicle Code section 23640 prohibits diversion in all DUI cases. Held: Reversed. In…

View Full Summary
Name: In re R.C.
Case #: A123675
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Citation: 182 Cal.App.4th 1437
Opinion Date: 03/19/2010

A court is not required to consider a minor's eligibility where the minor, initially alleged to have committed a felony, ultimately admits a misdemeanor offense. Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 790, a minor may be eligible for deferred entry of judgment because of the commission of a felony offense. The prosecuting attorney is required to determine eligibility and if there is a determination of eligibility and the minor admits the offense, the court may grant DEJ. Here, a petition alleging felony vandalism was filed but minor ultimately admitted a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 594 and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Popular
Case #: F049564
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Citation: 146 Cal.App.4th 479
Opinion Date: 01/03/2007

Under Penal Code section 1000 which provides for deferred entry of judgment, the dismissal of charges is triggered by defendant's successful completion of the program and not by the passage of the three years. The statute provides that if deferred entry of judgment is granted, the period shall be no less than 18 months and no longer than 3 years. Appellant contended that, despite his less than successful performance on the program, when criminal charges had not been reinstated within the three-year period, they were dismissed by operation of law and the court had no jurisdiction to do…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cisneros
Case #: A085065
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Citation: 84 Cal.App.4th 352
Opinion Date: 10/25/2000
Subsequent History: None

The court reversed an order denying the defendant consideration for drug diversion under the deferred entry program set up under Penal Code section 1000, et seq., and remanded for consideration of the defendant's application for diversion. The probation department had recommended defendant for diversion, but the court denied his application on the grounds that he was an illegal alien and therefore could not "obey all laws." On appeal, the court noted that section 1000, subdivision (a), did not list a misdemeanor violation of the federal immigration laws as one of the criteria for absolute exclusion. The court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mazurette
Case #: S081661
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Citation: 24 Cal.4th 789
Opinion Date: 01/04/2001
Subsequent History: None

Under Penal Code section 1237, a defendant can appeal only from a final judgment of conviction. Under Penal Code section 1237.5, no appeal can be taken following a guilty plea, and under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m), an appeal of a suppression motion can be taken following a guilty plea. Under Penal Code sections 1000-1000.4, entry of judgment of conviction is deferred when the defendant is diverted to a drug program. The interaction of these statutes creates an uncertainty regarding whether a defendant who has been diverted can appeal the denial of a suppression motion. …

View Full Summary