78 Cal.App.5th 1104
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Petitioner Alicia Urbieta Islas was charged with misdemeanor DUI (Veh. Code, §23152) and sought pretrial diversion under Penal Code §1001.95.
- The trial court denied diversion, relying on Vehicle Code §23640, which prohibits suspending or staying DUI proceedings to allow participation in education/treatment programs or considering dismissal on that basis.
- The trial court’s appellate division denied mandate relief; petitioner petitioned this Court for writ of mandate and the Court issued an order to show cause and stayed trial proceedings.
- The sole legal issue is whether Vehicle Code §23640 renders misdemeanor DUI defendants categorically ineligible for diversion under Penal Code §1001.95.
- Two published appellate decisions (Grassi and Tan) resolved the same issue by holding DUI defendants ineligible; this Court agreed with their reasoning and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veh. Code §23640 precludes misdemeanor DUI defendants from being offered diversion under Penal Code §1001.95 | §1001.95 vests judges with discretion to offer diversion and its express list of ineligible offenses (§1001.95(e)) does not include DUI, so DUI defendants are eligible; extrinsic materials (Legislative Counsel’s Digest, Governor’s signing statements) support eligibility | Veh. Code §23640 plainly and unambiguously prohibits diversion in any case charging §23152/23153; §23640 and §1001.95 can be harmonized so §23640 operates as an exception that bars diversion for DUIs | Denied. Court held §23640 makes misdemeanor DUI defendants categorically ineligible for §1001.95 diversion; the statutes are harmonized and plain language controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Grassi v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.5th 283 (harmonized Veh. Code §23640 with Penal Code §1001.95 and held DUI defendants ineligible for §1001.95 diversion)
- Tan v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.5th 130 (same holding and detailed statutory-interpretation analysis supporting categorical ineligibility)
- People v. Flores, 30 Cal.4th 1059 (if statute’s language is clear, courts need not consult extrinsic aids)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to nonfinal cases)