79 Cal.App.5th 830
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Demoryie Watts was charged with attempted carjacking and sought pretrial mental-health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36 multiple times; earlier requests were denied for noncompliance with treatment.
- Dr. Nicole Vienna evaluated Watts and produced a written report diagnosing intellectual disability and unspecified psychosis and opining the disorder significantly contributed to the offense and that Watts was a suitable diversion candidate.
- The People opposed diversion, arguing Dr. Vienna’s conclusions were unreliable (she relied primarily on Watts’s account and did not review investigatory materials) and pointing to Watts’s history of failing to attend mental-health appointments.
- At the May 12, 2021 hearing the trial court denied diversion, stating (incorrectly) that prosecutorial consent was required for informal diversion, but also made independent findings: the disorder was not a significant factor, Watts had a history of noncompliance, and the proposed case plan was insufficient.
- Watts pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison; on appeal he argued the court erred by treating prosecutorial consent as required and violated due process by refusing live testimony from Dr. Vienna.
- The Court of Appeal held that prosecutorial consent is not required (trial court erred), but the error was harmless because the court independently and permissibly found Watts ineligible; it also held denial of live expert testimony in the informal diversion hearing did not violate due process.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Watts’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutorial consent is required to grant diversion under §1001.36 | People (at trial) opposed diversion and emphasized the need for collaboration; on appeal conceded consent not statutorily required | Statute contains no consent requirement; court may grant diversion despite prosecution’s opposition | Consent is not required. Trial court’s belief that it was required was legal error but harmless because the court independently denied diversion on valid grounds |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying diversion | Dr. Vienna’s report was unreliable; Watts previously failed to attend treatment; he was not amenable and disorder was not a significant factor | Watts met statutory prerequisites (qualifying diagnosis, significant factor, amenable to treatment) | No abuse of discretion. Substantial evidence supports court’s findings (disorder not a significant factor, noncompliance, insufficient plan) |
| Whether Watts had a due process right to present live expert testimony at the diversion hearing | Diversion hearing is informal and may proceed on offers of proof and reliable hearsay; written reports suffice | Due process required live testimony to rebut criticisms of the expert report | No due process violation. §1001.36 authorizes informal hearings and reliance on documentary evidence; denial of live testimony was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (recognizing §1001.36 gives trial courts discretion to grant diversion)
- People v. Moine, 62 Cal.App.5th 440 (discussing trial-court discretion under §1001.36)
- People v. O’Neal, 64 Cal.App.5th 581 (same)
- People v. Curry, 62 Cal.App.5th 314 (trial court has broad discretion to assess diversion candidacy)
- People v. Jefferson, 38 Cal.App.5th 399 (harmless-error analysis where court independently would have denied diversion)
- Whitman v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 1063 (upholding statutory limits on calling witnesses at preliminary-type proceedings)
- People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (no constitutional right to present live testimony at post-trial sentencing-type proceedings)