76 Cal.App.5th 130
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Petitioner Longen Tan was charged with two misdemeanor violations of Vehicle Code §23152 (DUI).
- Penal Code §1001.95 (effective Jan. 1, 2021) authorizes judges to offer misdemeanor diversion at their discretion but lists specific statutory exclusions; it does not expressly mention DUI.
- Vehicle Code §23640 expressly prohibits courts from suspending or staying proceedings to allow diversion for defendants charged under Veh. Code §§23152 or 23153 (DUI).
- Tan petitioned for diversion under §1001.95; the trial court found him suitable but denied diversion citing a countywide policy refusing diversion for misdemeanor DUI; lower appellate relief was denied and Tan sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal independently interpreted the statutes, reviewed legislative history and canons of construction, and concluded the statutes can be harmonized so that Veh. Code §23640 precludes diversion for misdemeanor DUIs under §1001.95.
- The court found legislative history ambiguous, declined to disturb Vehicle Code §23640 by implication, denied Tan’s petition, and urged legislative clarification.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tan) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent/Superior Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code §1001.95 makes misdemeanor DUI defendants eligible for judicial diversion despite Veh. Code §23640 | §1001.95 is a broad grant permitting diversion for misdemeanors unless expressly excluded; DUI is not excluded, and legislative history indicates intent to include DUI | Veh. Code §23640 expressly and unambiguously prohibits diversion for DUI; §1001.95 contains no “notwithstanding” language and cannot be read to impliedly repeal §23640 | Statutes harmonized: §1001.95 provides general discretion for misdemeanor diversion but Veh. Code §23640’s specific prohibition bars diversion for misdemeanor DUI defendants |
| Whether the trial court’s countywide policy and refusal to exercise discretion violated Tan’s rights | Trial court failed to exercise discretion and adopted an unlawful policy, violating due process and court rules | No need to decide because diversion is statutorily unavailable for misdemeanor DUI | Court did not reach due-process/policy claims because diversion is unavailable under governing statutes |
| Whether legislative history overrides canons favoring harmonization and against implied repeal | Floor statements and bill history show Legislature intended §1001.95 to allow DUI diversion; legislative history controls | Legislative history is sparse and ambiguous; canons (harmonize statutes, presumption against repeal by implication) support giving effect to §23640 | Legislative history held insufficient to overcome presumption against implied repeal; harmonization preserves §23640’s prohibition |
Key Cases Cited
- Grassi v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.5th 283 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (concluded §1001.95 and Veh. Code §23640 can be harmonized; DUI diversion unavailable)
- Tellez v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.App.5th 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (interpreting interaction of diversion statutes and Veh. Code §23640; held DUI ineligible for certain diversions)
- Moore v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.App.5th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (analyzed Veh. Code §23640’s effect on diversion statutes; supported ineligibility for DUI defendants)
- Weatherill v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 1569 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (held DUI defendants not subject to a particular diversion scheme; strong precedent on Veh. Code former provisions)
- People v. Gonzalez, 2 Cal.5th 1138 (Cal. 2017) (statutory interpretation principles; courts determine legislative intent starting with plain language)
- State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 940 (Cal. 2015) (canon requiring harmonization of statutes where reasonably possible)
- Even Zohar Constr. & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC, 61 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. 2015) (discusses use of statutory text and extrinsic aids when language is ambiguous)