People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618

Background:

In March 2016 Eric Frahs, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder, threw rocks at cars, assaulted a store owner, and stole two beverages; a jury convicted him of two second-degree robberies and a misdemeanor, and a court found a prior serious-felony allegation true; he was sentenced to nine years.
While his appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Penal Code §§1001.35–1001.36 (2018), creating a pretrial mental-health diversion program that can lead to dismissal after successful treatment and a maximum two-year diversion period.
The Court of Appeal held §1001.36 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments, conditionally reversed Frahs’s convictions, and remanded for a diversion eligibility hearing because the record showed he had a qualifying mental disorder.
The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the statute applies retroactively and whether the Court of Appeal’s conditional reversal and limited remand were correct.
The Supreme Court affirmed: it held Estrada’s inference of retroactivity applies to §1001.36, found no clear legislative intent to limit application prospectively, and approved a conditional limited remand for an eligibility hearing where the record shows at least a qualifying mental disorder.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penal Code §1001.36 (mental‑health diversion) applies retroactively to cases not yet final	§1001.36 is pretrial by definition (available until "adjudication") and procedural, so it should apply prospectively only	The statute is ameliorative for a class (mentally disordered defendants) and, under Estrada, presumptively applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments	The Court held §1001.36 is ameliorative and Estrada applies; no clear legislative signal rebuts retroactivity, so it applies to nonfinal cases
Whether timing/procedural language ("until adjudication", waiver of speedy trial, "pretrial") rebuts Estrada	Those provisions show the Legislature intended diversion only before adjudication, rebutting retroactivity	Such language describes ordinary operation and does not clearly show an intent to deny retroactivity	The Court rejected this; timing language describes normal procedure and does not "clearly signal" prospective‑only intent
Appropriate remedy when case is nonfinal on appeal	Remand is unwarranted unless appellant proves all §1001.36 eligibility criteria on the appellate record	Appellate remand is appropriate when the record affirmatively shows at least a qualifying mental disorder; trial court should decide remaining criteria	The Court approved a conditional limited remand when the record shows at least the first threshold requirement (qualifying disorder); trial court to hold eligibility hearing and may grant diversion if criteria met

Key Cases Cited

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative changes to criminal law are presumptively retroactive to nonfinal judgments)
People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (2018) (applied Estrada to a law that reduced possible punishment for a class — juveniles — and confirmed retroactivity)
People v. Francis, 71 Cal.2d 66 (1969) (Estrada inference applies to statutes granting courts greater sentencing discretion)
People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (1996) (Estrada governs absent an express savings clause or clear contrary legislative intent)
People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (2016) (reinforces that ameliorative statutes are retroactive unless Legislature clearly signals otherwise)