529 P.3d 1116
Cal.2023Background
- On April 25, 2018 Cory Braden (diagnosed with schizophrenia) assaulted family members and a deputy; he was charged with resisting an executive officer (§ 69) and alleged Two-Strikes priors.
- Braden represented himself at trial; a jury convicted him and found the prior convictions true.
- After conviction but before sentencing, newly appointed counsel moved for mental‑health diversion under Penal Code § 1001.36; the People opposed and the trial court denied the motion as untimely and moot.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding a § 1001.36 request must be made before trial begins; other appellate panels had reached conflicting rules (some allowing requests until verdict or until sentencing).
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the split and held § 1001.36 diversion must be requested before adjudication begins — i.e., before jeopardy attaches at trial or before a guilty/no‑contest plea, whichever occurs first.
- Justice Evans dissented (joined by Justice Liu), arguing “until adjudication” means until entry of judgment (i.e., through sentencing) and courts should retain discretion to grant diversion later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Braden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When must a defendant request mental‑health diversion under Penal Code § 1001.36 (definition of “pretrial diversion” and phrase “until adjudication”)? | The statutory phrase and scheme mean diversion is a pretrial remedy; request must be made before trial begins or before a plea. | “Until adjudication” includes entry of judgment (sentencing); diversion may be requested up through sentencing. | A timely § 1001.36 request must be made before jeopardy attaches at trial or before entry of a guilty/no‑contest plea, whichever occurs first; mid‑ or posttrial requests are untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (addressing retroactivity of § 1001.36 and noting ambiguity of “until adjudication”)
- Morse v. Municipal Court, 13 Cal.3d 149 (Cal. 1974) (holding a statutory speedy‑trial waiver linked to diversion limits the timing of diversion requests to before trial commences)
- Gresher v. Anderson, 127 Cal.App.4th 88 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (discussing pretrial diversion purpose — to avoid trial — in construing diversion statutes)
- People v. Curry, 62 Cal.App.5th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (held diversion could be sought until sentencing; disapproved to the extent inconsistent with this decision)
- People v. Graham, 64 Cal.App.5th 827 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (held diversion could be sought until verdict; disapproved to the extent inconsistent with this decision)
- People v. McKenzie, 9 Cal.5th 40 (Cal. 2020) (discussed meaning of judgment/sentence for retroactivity context; distinguished here)