People v. Qualkinbush
79 Cal.App.5th 879
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Cristina Romero Qualkinbush (age 20) attacked her 75‑year‑old adoptive mother with scissors and resisted arrest, spitting at an officer; charged with elder abuse, assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism, and misdemeanor battery on an officer.
- A psychologist diagnosed PTSD, complex trauma, and partial fetal alcohol syndrome and opined mental‑health treatment would address her symptoms; Qualkinbush moved for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36.
- The trial court found statutory eligibility factors largely satisfied or assumed, but denied diversion as "not suitable" based on general sentencing objectives (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.410) emphasizing punishment and deterrence; denial was without prejudice; Qualkinbush later pled guilty and received 3 years formal probation and residential treatment.
- On appeal the court held the trial court abused its discretion by relying on general sentencing goals instead of the diversion statute’s rehabilitative purposes, and remanded for reconsideration of diversion under §1001.36.
- The appellate court also ordered vacatur of certain unpaid fees/costs under AB 1869 and correction of the probation search condition to remove searches of computers/recordable media; it found AB 1950’s two‑year probation cap inapplicable because §1203.097 mandates a 36‑month minimum for crimes involving certain domestic‑violence victims.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Qualkinbush’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse discretion in denying pretrial mental‑health diversion under §1001.36? | Court reasonably found defendant/offense not suitable for diversion and relied on sentencing objectives to justify denial. | Trial court applied improper standard (general sentencing goals) instead of statute’s primary purposes (rehabilitation, reduce criminal justice entry/reentry); eligibility met. | Reversed and remanded: trial court abused discretion by not giving proper weight to §1001.35 purposes; must reconsider diversion within 90 days. |
| Are certain court fees/costs unenforceable under AB 1869 and must be vacated? | Conceded the unpaid balances of specified fees/costs are unenforceable and should be vacated. | Requests vacatur of unpaid balances. | Granted: vacate unpaid portions of criminal justice administration fee, §1203.1b costs, and §987.8 attorney services costs as of July 1, 2021. |
| Does the probation search condition permitting searches of computers and recordable media conflict with the oral pronouncement and require correction? | Agrees the written condition conflicts with oral ruling and should be corrected. | Seeks deletion of electronic/search language as orally ordered. | Granted: correct probation condition to delete “computers, and recordable media.” Oral pronouncement controls. |
| Does AB 1950’s two‑year probation cap apply to reduce the 3‑year probation term? | People argue defendant waived challenge by agreeing to term; also contend exception applies so cap doesn't apply. | Argues negotiated 3‑year probation might be subject to AB 1950 cap. | Held: AB 1950 limit does not apply; §1203.097 requires 36‑month minimum where victim is a protected family member, so 3‑year term valid; defendant also appears to have waived challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho), 11 Cal.3d 59 (Cal. 1974) (characterizes diversion as a specialized form of probation and a second chance for rehabilitation)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (describes statutory eligibility framework and standards for mental‑health diversion)
- People v. Gerson, 74 Cal.App.5th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (reviews eligibility findings under substantial‑evidence standard and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Wade v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App.5th 694 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (trial court must exercise diversion discretion consistent with statute’s rehabilitative purposes)
- People v. Zackery, 147 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting minute order/abstract)
- People v. Lopez‑Vinck, 68 Cal.App.5th 945 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (AB 1869 vacatur of certain court‑imposed costs is mandatory)
- People v. Sinohui, 28 Cal.4th 205 (Cal. 2002) (statutory construction principles for resolving ambiguous statutory language)
- Morse v. Municipal Court, 13 Cal.3d 149 (Cal. 1974) (order denying diversion is reviewable on appeal)