58 Cal.App.5th 561
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Petitioner David Moore was charged with felony DUI causing injury (Veh. Code, §§23152/23153) and enhancements; the trial court denied a prima facie hearing for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36, citing Veh. Code §23640.
- Veh. Code §23640 (and its predecessor) forbids courts from suspending or staying preconviction proceedings to allow participation in education/treatment programs for any misdemeanor or felony DUI.
- Penal Code §1001.36 (enacted 2018) authorizes pretrial mental health diversion for qualifying misdemeanor or felony defendants with specified mental disorders; Senate Bill 215 (2018) later excluded certain violent/sex offenses from eligibility but did not mention DUI.
- In 2017 the Legislature expressly amended Penal Code §1001.80 (military diversion) to state misdemeanor DUI defendants may be eligible notwithstanding Veh. Code §23640; no comparable carve‑out was added to §1001.36.
- The appellate court (adopting Tellez) denied Moore’s petition, holding the legislative history and canons of construction support preserving Veh. Code §23640’s bar to §1001.36 diversion for DUI defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Veh. Code §23640 bars DUI defendants from pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 | §1001.36 authorizes diversion for misdemeanors/felonies and excludes certain offenses but not DUI; thus DUI defendants are eligible | Veh. Code §23640 expressly prohibits any pretrial diversion for DUI charges, so §1001.36 cannot override it | Court: Veh. Code §23640 keeps DUI defendants ineligible for §1001.36 diversion |
| Whether legislative history (including §1001.80 amendment) indicates intent to include DUI in §1001.36 | Omission of DUI from final §1001.36 shows Legislature intended to include DUI defendants | Legislature expressly carved out DUI for military diversion (§1001.80) but did not do so for §1001.36, indicating intent to leave §23640 intact | Court: Legislative history supports Tellez — Legislature did not intend §1001.36 to supersede §23640 |
| Whether canons (expressio unius; implied repeal; later-enacted statute controls) compel inclusion | Expressio unius: listing other disqualifications but not DUI implies DUI allowed; later enactment (§1001.36) should control | Canons cannot overcome clear legislative intent; no clear implied repeal of §23640 | Court: Rejects Moore’s canons arguments; no implied repeal; canons don’t override legislative intent |
| Whether public policy or subsequent misdemeanor-diversion legislation (AB 3234) requires inclusion | Public policy favors diversion for mentally ill DUI defendants; AB 3234’s omission of DUI implies inclusion | Policy choices and any expansion of diversion are for the Legislature, not the courts | Court: Policy/AB 3234 do not alter statutory construction; Legislature must act to change eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Tellez v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. App. 5th 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (concluding DUI offenses are categorically ineligible for mental‑health diversion under §1001.36)
- VanVleck v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. App. 5th 355 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (addressing conflict between Veh. Code §23640 and diversion statutes)
- Hopkins v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. App. 5th 1275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (held §1001.80 could supersede Veh. Code §23640 before legislative clarification)
- People v. Weatherill, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1569 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (discussing the predecessor statute barring DUI diversion)
- People v. Duncan, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1621 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (legislative intent to prohibit DUI diversion programs)
- State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 4th 940 (Cal. 2015) (principle of harmonizing statutes and avoiding repeal by implication)