Reported / Citable
Background
A March 2022 complaint charged Madeline Murphy with seven counts arising from alleged unlicensed commercial cannabis activity in July 2021, including Los Angeles Municipal Code violations and Health and Safety Code counts for maintaining a place for unlawful drug sales and possession of cannabis for sale. She pleaded not guilty and moved for misdemeanor diversion. In February 2023 the trial court offered two years of judicial diversion under Penal Code section 1001.95 on condition that she perform 200 hours of community service. It declined her request for a shorter term and fewer hours, but allowed service with a reputable nonprofit near where she planned to move. She accepted.
The 24-month period expired on February 17, 2025. At a hearing the next day, defendant said she was about halfway done and cited physical limitations. The court found the service incomplete, terminated diversion over the People's objection, and set a progress hearing on possible reinstatement. After more hearings, a June 25 order granted a new one-year diversion term. The People petitioned for writ relief, this court issued an alternative writ, and the trial court vacated that order. On August 29, 2025, relying on medical documentation and its calculation that defendant had done 122 of 200 hours, the court found substantial compliance, deemed diversion successfully completed, and dismissed the action. The People appealed. No respondent's brief was filed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division reversed. It reviewed the dismissal for abuse of discretion and the statutory questions de novo. A trial court may not create its own diversion program outside the Legislature's limits, including the 24-month maximum in section 1001.95, subdivision (b). Once the period ended, the court could only dismiss under the statute or let regular criminal proceedings continue.
Dismissal is permitted only if the defendant completed all conditions ordered by the court (section 1001.96, subdivision (a)) and complied with them at the end of the diversion period (section 1001.95, subdivision (c)). It was undisputed that defendant had not finished the 200 hours when diversion ended. Other statutes, including mental health diversion under section 1001.36, expressly allow dismissal for substantial compliance, so the court presumed the Legislature intentionally omitted that standard from the misdemeanor scheme. The court's discretion under subdivision (d) to end diversion for noncompliance does not reach the post-diversion period. Section 1385 could not support the dismissal because the Legislature showed a contrary intent.
The court added that, even assuming substantial compliance were available, finding it here was an abuse of discretion. Defendant had 24 months to finish service that could be done in under two hours a week, and the record did not show she was physically unable to do it. Her documented back problems began in March 2024, more than a year into diversion, and she did not seek modification during the term but waited until it expired. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for the trial court to reinstate criminal proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Dismissal under sections 1001.95 and 1001.96 requires completion of all court-ordered conditions by the end of the diversion period; substantial compliance is not a statutory basis for dismissal.
- A trial court cannot extend misdemeanor diversion past 24 months or grant a fresh diversion term after the original period has expired.
- The opinion expressly does not limit a court's power to modify diversion conditions during the 24-month term, so defendants facing hardship should seek modification before the period ends.
- Section 1385 cannot be used to dismiss a misdemeanor diversion case that fails the completion requirement, because the Legislature limited dismissal to defendants who complete the conditions.
- The reversal is not a ruling on guilt; it returns the case to the trial court so that the criminal proceedings can resume.
Why It Matters
As a published Appellate Division opinion, this decision tells trial courts that misdemeanor diversion under section 1001.95 et seq. operates on a completion standard. The court contrasted it with mental health, veteran, and juvenile supervision provisions that expressly allow substantial compliance, and treated the difference as deliberate. Judges who want to accommodate disability or changed circumstances must do so by modifying conditions while diversion is running, and defense counsel should raise hardship early rather than after the period lapses.
The ruling leaves several matters open. It does not define what in-term modifications are permissible, and it does not decide the merits of the seven charges, which return to the trial court. It was also decided without a respondent's brief, so the analysis rests on the record and the People's arguments.