101 Cal.App.5th 113
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Gregory Terence Brown was charged with aggravated mayhem and assault with a deadly weapon after assaulting a neighbor with a cane, causing serious injuries.
- Brown was declared incompetent to stand trial but later had his competency restored after mental health treatment.
- Before trial, Brown moved for pretrial mental health diversion under Cal. Penal Code § 1001.36, based on diagnoses of schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder, supported by a psychologist’s report.
- The trial court denied Brown's diversion request, finding his mental disorder was not a significant factor in the offense and worrying about public safety risk.
- Brown was convicted in November 2022 and sentenced in January 2023, after recent amendments to § 1001.36 became effective.
- On appeal, Brown argued the denial of his diversion motion was erroneous and, in light of amendments to § 1001.36, he was entitled to reconsideration under the new law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Pretrial Diversion Motion | Court did not abuse discretion denying diversion | Court abused its discretion; disorder contributed to offense | Trial court did NOT abuse discretion under old statute |
| Retroactive Application of § 1001.36 Amendments | Brown forfeited retroactivity argument | Amendments retroactive and should be considered | Amendments are retroactive |
| Forfeiture of Rights by Not Moving for Reconsideration | Brown needed to seek reconsideration before sentencing | Any forfeiture due to ineffective assistance of counsel (alt) | No forfeiture; no obligation to move for reconsideration |
| Necessity of Remand for Reconsideration Under New Law | Remand unnecessary due to prior public safety denial | Remand required; public safety finding intertwined with new law | Remand required for reconsideration under new statute |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal. 5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (pretrial mental health diversion statute applies retroactively to nonfinal cases)
- People v. Gerson, 80 Cal. App. 5th 1067 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (appellate standard of review and trial court’s discretion in diversion motions)
- People v. Sarmiento, 98 Cal. App. 5th 882 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (2023 amendments changed diversion eligibility and created presumption for mental disorder’s impact)