63 Cal.App.5th 990
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Over ~2 years Williams sent thousands of anonymous, racist, violent and harassing communications to a married couple who owned an autobody shop and to a neighbor; he was arrested after his IP was traced.
- Charged with felony stalking (§ 646.9) and a misdemeanor criminal threat (§ 422); Williams pled no contest to the stalking count and the threat count was dismissed.
- After his plea, Penal Code § 1001.36 (pretrial mental‑health diversion) took effect and applies retroactively; Williams moved for diversion supported by two mental‑health experts and probation reports documenting treatment and remorse.
- Judge Scott held an evidentiary hearing and found Williams met the statutory criteria (including that he did not pose an unreasonable risk). The case was then referred for a local “suitability” hearing.
- Judge Novak denied diversion solely on dangerousness grounds, citing a nonviolent March 2019 sign in Williams’s partner’s car and continuing fixation on the victims. Williams was later sentenced to probation.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: applying the statutory dangerousness standard (likelihood to commit a limited set of "super‑strike" violent felonies), the record—including expert opinions, lack of weapons, no priors, and long bond release—did not support denial. The case was remanded for referral to diversion; if reconvicted, felony probation cannot exceed two years under recently changed law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying mental‑health diversion for dangerousness | Novak reasonably found Williams still posed an unreasonable risk given continued fixation and the March 2019 sign | Experts and probation record show low risk of future "super‑strike" violence; charges are not super‑strike; prior judge found eligibility | Reversed: denial was an abuse of discretion—statutory dangerousness requires likelihood of committing a super‑strike, which record does not support; refer for diversion |
| Whether felony probation term must be reduced in light of law change | People agree new max applies retroactively | Williams contends probation exceeding new statutory max is invalid | If re‑sentenced to felony probation, maximum term is two years (retroactive application upheld) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Moine, 62 Cal.App.5th 440 (court of appeal) (explains dangerousness under §1001.36 is narrowly tied to likelihood of committing listed "super‑strike" offenses)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 619 (Cal.) (§1001.36 applies retroactively; statute intended to broaden diversion)
- People v. Jacobs, 156 Cal.App.4th 728 (court of appeal) (discussion of abuse of discretion standard)
- People v. O'Hearn, 57 Cal.App.5th 280 (court of appeal) (legislative purpose to expand diversion and reduce incarceration of mentally ill defendants)