Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nancy Lee Elizabeth Coglizer served as bookkeeper and assistant to Constance McCormick Fearing from 1999. Fearing gave her power of attorney in 2018 and made her co-trustee of her living trust in 2020. Shortly after receiving power of attorney, Coglizer began writing checks to Craig Case, who had befriended her while providing security at Fearing's Montecito estate; she wrote five checks that year totaling $55,000. Investigators later determined Case cashed 104 checks from the trust account totaling about $690,000, many memoed 'gate and security consulting.' Prosecutors filed a 53-count felony complaint in 2023 charging both with theft from an elder and related conspiracy counts; the court held them to answer on all charges, and Fearing died while the case was pending.
Coglizer moved for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, citing major depressive disorder and PTSD after her mother's 2018 death, self-medicated with alcohol. Her psychiatrist, Jamie Rotnofsky, Ph.D., diagnosed untreated depression, major depressive disorder, and alcohol abuse disorder and opined they played a significant role in the offenses. The People opposed, showing she kept writing checks after completing substance abuse treatment and that her condition improved while the thefts continued. The trial court denied the motion, finding no support for the expert's causal opinion and stating it would deny diversion regardless because her continued conduct during treatment showed she would not respond to treatment. The Court of Appeal earlier denied her mandamus petition (Coglizer v. Superior Court (Feb. 28, 2024, B335158)); she then pleaded guilty, received a suspended sentence with 10 years' probation and 364 days in jail, and obtained a certificate of probable cause to appeal the diversion denial.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting Coglizer's claim that the trial court shifted the burden under section 1001.36, subdivision (b)(2). The trial court found she had three recognized disorders, triggering the statutory presumption that a disorder was a significant factor, but the appellate court held the oral ruling did not misapply the statute: the court confirmed it reviewed the defense petition, the opposition, and the reply, which clearly placed on the People the burden of clear and convincing evidence that the disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the court found substantial evidence supported the significant-factor finding: Coglizer wrote 36 checks to Case totaling $207,000 from February 2020 to June 2021—after a 30-day inpatient program, intensive outpatient treatment, anti-addiction medication, and maintained sobriety.
During that period the co-trustee described her as 'sharp, coherent, articulate and personable' and never 'weak, foggy, jumbled or barely functioning,' and texts showed her assuring therapists she felt well. She sought approval for a $35,000 gift to a caregiver and asked for a raise, yet kept violating her fiduciary duties; the payments stopped only when the new co-trustee asked questions, and she initially evaded before admitting the scheme, after Case proposed a backdated consulting agreement. Even if eligible, the court would affirm on suitability: the trial court reasonably found she 'wouldn't respond to treatment because [she was] in treatment and allegedly continued to write checks to the codefendant.'
Key Takeaways
- A ruling on a mental health diversion motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence, and the appellate court will not reweigh conflicting evidence.
- Continued criminal conduct after successful mental health and substance abuse treatment can support a finding that the disorder was not a significant factor in the offense.
- A trial court may deny diversion on suitability grounds where continued offending during prior treatment suggests the defendant would not respond to diversion treatment.
- A court need not recite the statutory burden verbatim in an oral ruling when the briefing articulated the correct standard and the record supports the findings.
- Competent, purposeful conduct during the offense period can undermine claims that mental health disorders significantly motivated the crimes.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that diversion under section 1001.36 requires more than a diagnosis and an expert opinion linking the disorder to the offense. Where substantial evidence shows competent functioning and continued crime after treatment, trial courts may find the disorder was not a significant factor, and appellate courts defer to those findings.
It also confirms that suitability is a separate inquiry from eligibility, that courts retain residual discretion to deny diversion consistent with the governing law, and that a poor response to prior treatment can support denial even if eligibility is established.