People v. Weaver
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant Christopher Weaver was charged with two counts of criminal threats and misdemeanor exhibition of a deadly weapon; convicted by jury and sentenced to four years. Prior conviction allegations were dismissed in part; three prison priors admitted.
- Weaver had been found incompetent, restored at Atascadero State Hospital, and released to community mental-health programs pretrial before being remanded back to custody.
- At trial victims testified Weaver threatened to "slice" them and produced a folding knife; an uncharged March 2016 7‑Eleven incident involving a knife was admitted under Evidence Code §1101(b). Weaver testified in his own defense, denied specific threats, and asserted mental-health symptoms and being unmedicated.
- On appeal Weaver argued the trial court erred by not holding a Marsden hearing on counsel replacement, by admitting the uncharged‑battery/knife evidence under §1101(b), and that newly enacted Penal Code §1001.36 (pretrial mental‑health diversion) applies retroactively to require remand for an eligibility hearing.
- The appellate court rejected the Marsden and Evidence Code challenges but held §1001.36 applies retroactively under Estrada to cases not yet final on appeal and conditionally reversed and remanded for a diversion eligibility hearing because the record showed at least one threshold requirement (a diagnosed mental disorder).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Weaver) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court denial of Marsden hearing | Weaver's letter requested new counsel; court should have held a Marsden hearing | Trial court did not err in procedure; no prejudice shown | Court rejected Weaver's claim (no reversible error) |
| Admission of uncharged incident under Evidence Code §1101(b) | The 7‑Eleven uncharged battery was impermissible propensity evidence | Evidence was admissible to show intent, identity, and a common plan under §1101(b) | Court affirmed admission as proper under §1101(b) |
| Retroactive application of Penal Code §1001.36 (mental‑health diversion) | §1001.36 is ameliorative and should apply to nonfinal cases like Weaver's; remand for eligibility hearing | §1001.36 was not intended to apply retroactively; text and history rebut Estrada presumption | Court held Estrada presumption not overcome; §1001.36 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases and remanded for a diversion eligibility hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative criminal statutes presumed retroactive absent contrary intent)
- People v. Dehoyos, 4 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (detailed petition/alternative mechanism can rebut Estrada presumption)
- People v. Lara, 6 Cal.5th 1128 (Cal. 2019) (Estrada presumption applies to ameliorative changes; legislature must clearly signal prospective intent)
- People v. Frahs, 27 Cal.App.5th 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (held §1001.36 applies retroactively and remanded for eligibility hearing)
- People v. Craine, 35 Cal.App.5th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held §1001.36 did not apply retroactively for defendants already through trial, sentencing, and adjudication)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003) (discusses Estrada and effect of express savings clauses)