How to Appeal the Denial of Mental Health Diversion

Understanding Mental Health Diversion

What is Mental Health Diversion?

Mental health diversion allows defendants diagnosed with qualifying mental disorders to undergo treatment instead of facing immediate prosecution. The goal is to address the root cause of the criminal behavior, providing a chance for rehabilitation and reducing recidivism.

Eligibility Criteria

Under Penal Code § 1001.36, to be eligible for mental health diversion, a defendant must:

1. Have a diagnosed mental disorder.
2. Show that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the crime.
3. Be amenable to treatment, as assessed by a qualified mental health expert.
4. Agree to comply with treatment requirements.
5. Not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

1. Understanding Mental Health Diversion
2. Appealing the Denial of Mental Health Diversion
3. Key Considerations for a Successful Appeal

Appealing the Denial of Mental Health Diversion

The Case of Jeanette Sarmiento

The following is a summary of the recent case of Sarmiento v. Superior Ct. of San Diego Cnty., 98 Cal. App. 5th 882, decided in 2024.

Jeanette Sarmiento requested pre-trial mental health diversion after being charged with attempted robbery. She was diagnosed with PTSD, major depressive disorder, and stimulant use disorder (methamphetamine). The Superior Court of San Diego County denied her request, leading Sarmiento to file a petition for a writ of mandate.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in denying Jeanette Sarmiento's request for mental health diversion, as there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Sarmiento's symptoms would not respond to treatment. The trial court had conflated substance abuse recovery with treatment for PTSD and depression, which had never been adequately addressed. The Court of Appeal determined that Sarmiento's past relapses in substance abuse treatment did not rationally support a conclusion that a comprehensive mental health treatment plan would be ineffective. Additionally, the appellate court found no substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision that the proposed treatment plan would not meet Sarmiento's specialized mental health needs. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the trial court misapplied the statutory criteria for assessing public safety risk, as there was no evidence to suggest that Sarmiento would commit a super strike offense if treated in the community. Thus, the appellate court directed the trial court to grant Sarmiento's request for mental health diversion.

Steps to Appeal the Denial of Mental Health Diversion

1. Understand the Trial Court’s Reasoning

The first step in appealing is to thoroughly understand why the trial court denied the diversion. In Sarmiento’s case, the court’s primary reasons were:

• Her past failures in drug treatment.
• The belief that she posed an unreasonable risk to public safety, despite not meeting the statutory definition of such a risk.

2. Review Statutory Criteria and Court’s Findings

Review the criteria set out in § 1001.36 and compare them with the court’s findings. Ensure that all eligibility and suitability requirements are met. The statute mandates that the denial of diversion must be based on substantial evidence.

3. Gather and Present Supporting Evidence

Compile additional evidence to counter the trial court’s reasons for denial. This can include:

• Expert testimony showing that the defendant’s mental health disorder is treatable.
• Evidence demonstrating that the defendant does not pose an unreasonable risk of danger, such as lack of a violent criminal history or positive behavior in the community.

4. Highlight Legislative Intent and Misapplication of Law

Emphasize the legislative intent behind the mental health diversion statute, which is to provide treatment and reduce recidivism. In Sarmiento’s case, the appellate court found that the trial court misapplied the statutory criteria by focusing on public safety concerns not supported by substantial evidence.

5. File a Writ of Mandate

If the trial court's denial is based on misapplication of law or lack of substantial evidence, filing a writ of mandate can compel the court to grant the diversion. In Sarmiento's case, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate, directing the trial court to grant her request for mental health diversion. Qualified appellate counsel handles writs of mandate and other criminal appeals. To find experienced attorneys, visit SPCRC's Recommended California Lawyers.

1. Understanding Mental Health Diversion
2. Appealing the Denial of Mental Health Diversion
3. Key Considerations for a Successful Appeal

Key Considerations for a Successful Appeal

Substantial Evidence Requirement

Ensure that the trial court’s decision is based on substantial evidence. If the court’s conclusions are not supported by the evidence, this can be grounds for appeal.

Legislative Preference for Treatment

Highlight the legislative preference for treatment over incarceration for defendants with mental health disorders. The statute’s primary purpose is to encourage treatment and rehabilitation.

Causal Connection Between Disorder and Crime

Establish a clear causal connection between the defendant’s mental disorder and the criminal behavior. This connection must be apparent unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

Appealing the denial of mental health diversion requires a strategic approach, emphasizing substantial evidence, legislative intent, and a clear causal connection between the mental disorder and the criminal behavior. By following these steps, defendants can increase their chances of successfully appealing the denial and gaining access to the treatment they need.