102 Cal.App.5th 787
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Crystal Graham was convicted by jury of kidnapping to commit robbery, kidnapping during a carjacking, robbery, and simple kidnapping based on her participation with Joe Navarro in a violent, elaborate kidnapping and robbery.
- The trial court sentenced Graham to two consecutive life sentences with the possibility of parole.
- On appeal, her conviction for simple kidnapping was reversed, and her case was remanded for a hearing on eligibility for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, which applied retroactively due to statutory amendments.
- At the diversion hearing, Graham submitted evidence of her mental health diagnoses and efforts at rehabilitation in prison; the trial court denied her motion to exclude trial transcripts from consideration.
- The trial court concluded Graham was ineligible and unsuitable for mental health diversion after considering trial evidence, her criminal conduct, and prior noncompliance with court-ordered treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could consider trial transcripts and convictions when assessing eligibility and suitability for pretrial mental health diversion under section 1001.36 | The trial court can consider all relevant evidence, including trial transcripts, to assess eligibility and risk to public safety. | Only pretrial evidence should be considered; transcripts and convictions rendered post-trial should be excluded for a true "pretrial" evaluation. | The trial court correctly considered all relevant and credible evidence, including trial transcripts and convictions, per the statute's plain language. |
| Whether Graham was ineligible for diversion due to lack of nexus between her mental disorder and the criminal conduct | Dr. Ebert's report and testimony did not establish a sufficient connection; her crimes were calculated, not caused by her mental health disorder. | Dr. Ebert opined that her mental health contributed to her criminal behavior; no clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption. | Substantial evidence supported the court's finding of no nexus; denial affirmed. |
| Whether Graham was unsuitable because she posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if granted diversion | Her convictions for "super strikes" and violent conduct show she poses a risk of committing further violent felonies. | Her current rehabilitation efforts and willingness to comply with treatment mitigate risk; past crimes should not disqualify her. | Substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding she posed such a risk; denial affirmed. |
| Whether defendant forfeited any argument that the trial court could not consider her convictions at the eligibility/suitability hearing | Did not forfeit—trial court is permitted to consider convictions in assessing suitability under the statute. | Forfeited—because counsel failed to object specifically to consideration of convictions. | Defendant forfeited this argument by failing to object in trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (held that Penal Code section 1001.36 mental health diversion applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments and addressed procedural posture on remand)
- People v. Whitmill, 86 Cal.App.5th 1138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (mental health diversion decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; suitability turns on risk of dangerousness)
- People v. Moine, 62 Cal.App.5th 440 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (abuse of discretion standard for mental health diversion rulings)
- People v. Bunas, 79 Cal.App.5th 840 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (trial courts have broad discretion to consider circumstances of the charged offense when determining suitability for diversion)