Wade v. Superior Court
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 435
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Andrew M. Wade, an active-duty Army Special Forces member and graduate student, was charged with two misdemeanor DUI counts (including an allegation of BAC ≥ .15) after being observed weaving and making an unsafe stop; no collision or hit‑and‑run occurred.
- Wade sought pretrial military diversion under Penal Code §1001.80, asserting service‑related PTSD/substance‑abuse issues and providing supporting letters; the People did not dispute eligibility but opposed diversion on public‑safety grounds (especially high BAC).
- Monterey County used a locally drafted “Military Diversion Information Sheet” listing seven eligibility items and 29 “factors of consideration” derived from felony sentencing rules; parties disputed the sheet’s role.
- The trial court denied diversion, emphasizing DUI is an “inherently dangerous” offense and noting Wade’s .16 BAC and “bad driving,” framing public safety as dispositive.
- The superior court appellate division split; a majority upheld the denial, while a dissent said the court focused on punishment‑oriented sentencing factors rather than the statute’s rehabilitative purpose.
- The Court of Appeal granted relief, holding the trial court abused its discretion by basing denial on factors (inherent danger and high BAC) that conflict with the Legislature’s explicit inclusion of misdemeanor DUI within §1001.80 and by failing to apply the statute’s rehabilitative objective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wade) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may deny military diversion using factors drawn from felony sentencing guidelines and focusing on offense danger | Court must apply §1001.80’s rehabilitative purpose; reliance on felony sentencing factors is inconsistent and improper | §1001.80 gives the court broad discretion to consider relevant factors; local information sheet is a reasonable guide | Denial based chiefly on those factors was an abuse of discretion where the court showed no consideration of rehabilitative purpose |
| Whether a DUI charge, and specifically a high BAC (.16), may be treated as a per se barrier to military diversion | Legislature amended §1001.80 to include misdemeanor DUI; no BAC‑based exclusion exists, so BAC alone cannot categorically bar diversion | Public safety may require excluding high‑BAC DUIs from diversion; court may create bright‑line rules | Court may not deny eligible military defendants diversion solely because the offense is an "inherently dangerous" DUI or because BAC is high; that would contravene legislative intent |
| Whether the court’s reasoning was supported by accurate facts and the record | Wade pointed out factual errors in the People’s written opposition (no collision/no leaving the scene) and argued court relied on inaccurate statements | People relied on their factual summary at the hearing to justify safety concerns | Court appeared to rely on inaccurate or disputed factual assertions; factual inaccuracies further undermine the exercise of discretion |
| Proper remedy for erroneous denial of diversion | Wade sought immediate placement into diversion program | People opposed mandating placement; argued remand appropriate | Writ granted in part: superior court must vacate denial and reconsider diversion request consistent with §1001.80’s rehabilitative purpose; remand for reconsideration (not automatic placement) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. On Tai Ho, 11 Cal.3d 59 (Cal. 1974) (diversion’s primary purpose is rehabilitation; courts should assess individual suitability for treatment)
- Morse v. Municipal Court, 13 Cal.3d 149 (Cal. 1974) (order denying diversion is reviewable in limited circumstances; diversion doctrine explained)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard: decision so irrational no reasonable person would agree)
- People v. Alvarez, 14 Cal.4th 968 (Cal. 1997) (discretion must be guided by legal principles and the statute’s spirit)
- Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.4th 96 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (discretionary orders based on improper criteria are reversible)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (Cal. 2007) (discussion of sentencing rules and the purposes they serve)