People v. Avila CA3, C093992A

Background

Isabel Avila was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, corporal injury to a cohabitant, and assault with a deadly weapon; enhancements for great bodily injury and weapon use were found true. She received an aggregate sentence of 7 years to life plus 8 years.
On earlier appeal this court conditionally reversed and remanded for a Penal Code §1001.36 mental-health diversion eligibility hearing. On remand the trial court denied diversion, finding Avila’s qualifying mental disorders did not substantially contribute to the offenses and alternatively exercising discretion to deny diversion based on case circumstances.
Avila appealed the denial and raised additional claims based on postconviction statutory amendments: SB 1223 (amending §1001.36), AB 518 (amending §654), and SB 567/AB 124 (amending §1170(b)(6)). The Attorney General conceded retroactivity for the amendments at issue.
The trial court relied on evidence (including defendant’s pre-offense texts and credibility issues) and a forensic report it found unpersuasive because the expert did not consider trial evidence.
This appeal: court affirms denial of §1001.36 diversion but remands for resentencing consistent with amended §1170(b) and amended §654.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Denial of mental-health diversion under §1001.36 (and effect of SB 1223)	The People argued the trial court properly found defendant’s mental disorders did not substantially contribute to the offenses, and in any event the court reasonably exercised its discretion to deny diversion.	Avila argued the court erred in finding no causal link; SB 1223 lowers the showing (diagnosis presumptively a significant factor), so remand required.	Affirmed. The court did not abuse its discretion; it considered the full record, reasonably rejected the expert’s conclusory opinion, and alternatively would have denied diversion even under the amended statute.
2. Resentencing under amended §654 (AB 518)	The People/AG conceded AB 518 is retroactive but suggested the record may show the court would not have favored a different stay choice.	Avila argued remand is required so the sentencing court may choose which punishable provision to execute or stay under the new discretion.	Remand required. Because the record does not clearly show the court would have exercised its new discretion the same way, resentencing is necessary for an informed exercise of discretion.
3. Application of amended §1170(b)(6) (SB 567/AB 124) for lower-term presumption	The People contended Avila did not necessarily benefit and relied on sentencing court’s original reasoning.	Avila argued her trauma history qualifies under §1170(b)(6), triggering a presumption for the lower term and requiring resentencing.	Remand required. The sentencing court lacked the benefit of the new presumption and did not perform the §1170(b)(6) analysis; the record is insufficient to conclude the court would have imposed the same term.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (2020) (explains §1001.36 diversion criteria and discretionary nature of diversion)
People v. Williams, 63 Cal.App.5th 990 (2021) (§1001.36 and retroactivity principles)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014) (remand required when trial court unaware of discretionary authority)
People v. McDaniels, 22 Cal.App.5th 420 (2018) (remand not required only where record clearly shows same result would have occurred)
People v. Flores, 9 Cal.5th 371 (2020) (principles on when resentencing is an idle act)
People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290 (2000) (§654 prohibits multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct)
People v. Mani, 74 Cal.App.5th 343 (2022) (AB 518 retroactivity and its application to sentencing discretion)