Negron v. Super. Ct.
F083149
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2021Background
- Petitioner Juan Miguel Negron faced two pending cases (felony assault with a deadly weapon, felony evasion, resisting; Three Strikes allegations and enhancements were alleged).
- Negron moved for pretrial mental-health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36; the trial court held a June 22, 2021 hearing and denied diversion.
- Psychological evaluator Dr. Musacco diagnosed Negron with stimulant use disorder (in remission), an unspecified schizophrenia‑spectrum disorder, borderline intellectual functioning (all qualifying), and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which §1001.36(b)(1)(A) expressly excludes.
- Dr. Musacco testified the qualifying disorders substantially contributed to Negron’s conduct but were interrelated with ASPD and could not be neatly separated. The trial court treated the ASPD diagnosis as a statutory bar and denied diversion without resolving the other §1001.36(b)(1) requirements.
- The Attorney General agreed the presence of an excluded disorder does not automatically bar diversion; Negron petitioned for writ relief.
- The Court of Appeal (Fifth Dist.) held §1001.36(b)(1)(A) does not categorically preclude diversion because a defendant also has an excluded disorder, vacated the denial, and remanded for a new eligibility hearing on the remaining elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a diagnosis of an excluded disorder (ASPD) makes a defendant per se ineligible for §1001.36 diversion when the defendant also has qualifying disorders | Negron: Presence of an excluded disorder does not bar diversion; statute requires only that the defendant suffer from at least one qualifying DSM disorder | Trial court/defense of exclusion: An excluded disorder listed in §1001.36(b)(1)(A) renders a defendant statutorily ineligible regardless of co‑occurring qualifying disorders | Court: §1001.36(b)(1)(A) does not categorically bar diversion for defendants who also suffer an excluded disorder; defendant need only establish at least one qualifying disorder; vacated and remanded for further eligibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (California 2020) (amendment and scope of §1001.36 eligibility and statutory structure)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (California 2012) (courts may consider statutory purpose when interpreting ambiguous provisions)
- People v. Oneal, 64 Cal.App.5th 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (abuse of discretion standard for diversion factual findings)
- People v. Moine, 62 Cal.App.5th 440 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (abuse of discretion review for public‑safety risk determinations under diversion statutes)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (California 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v. Chubbuck, 43 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (application of statute to undisputed facts is a question of law reviewed de novo)