191 Cal. App. 4th 387
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Anita Trask faced possession of methamphetamine and false impersonation charges; she pled nolo contendere to the possession charge and received deferred entry of judgment (diversion) under Penal Code section 1000 et seq.
- Trask could not afford the NCADD intake fee or monthly program payments and moved for a no-cost diversion or fee waiver; amended motion sought no-cost diversion or fee exemptions.
- She is a single mother of five with income largely from Social Security and frequent homelessness; NCADD intake required a non-waivable $75 intake fee plus monthly payments; defense encountered barriers finding a no-cost option.
- Counsel and NCADD staff told there were no fee waivers and that free diversion programs were unavailable due to purported county budget constraints; two hearings were held.
- The trial court found an inability to pay but denied diversion and terminated diversion, reinstating criminal proceedings and imposing probation; defendant appealed, obtaining a certificate of probable cause.
- Appellate issue: whether termination of diversion based solely on inability to pay diverges from the statutory scheme; court reviews de novo on statutory construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination based solely on inability to pay is authorized | Trask argues termination cannot be based solely on inability to pay | People concede abuse by denying fee-exemption consideration | Not authorized; termination based solely on inability to pay violates the statute |
| Remand/remedy for no-cost or fee-exempt programs | Trask seeks remand for probation to provide no-cost diversion | Remand to mandate no-cost program not required; may refer to fee-exempt or other certified program | Remand for further proceedings, not mandatory to order no-cost program nor payment by probation |
| Role of certification and fee-exemption provisions in eligibility | Argues indigent must have access via fee exemptions under certification requirements | Certification and exemptions govern program referrals but not termination on payment inability | Statutory scheme requires fee exemptions; termination for nonpayment is improper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Popular, 146 Cal.App.4th 479 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (statutory interpretation of penal provisions; harmonize framework)
- People v. Orihuela, 122 Cal.App.4th 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (deferred-entry framework and program referrals)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (probation violation based on nonpayment may raise constitutional concerns)
- State v. Anderson, 66 Ore.App. 855 (Or. 1984) (constitutional concerns with diversion termination for nonpayment (policy context))
- Mueller v. State of Indiana, 837 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (nonpayment-based denial of diversion raises due process considerations)
- Butler v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.App.4th 64 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (appealability and procedural posture in diversion context)