Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dequan Hale was charged by amended felony complaint with unlawful firearm activity (count 1) and possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm (count 2), with an allegation that he was on supervision. Police saw him riding an electric bicycle without a helmet; he fled, threw a loaded firearm onto a roof, and admitted fleeing while armed and selling drugs. In September 2024 the trial court ordered a regional center to evaluate Hale for developmental disability diversion and prepare a report under section 1001.22. The following month Hale moved for developmental disability diversion, and in November 2024 he petitioned for mental health diversion under section 1001.36 on the same evidence.
Hale supported the requests with Dr. Krystal Bowen's evaluation diagnosing opioid use disorder, stimulant use disorder, unspecified mood disorder, and impulsivity, opining the disorders were a significant factor in the offenses and recommending a 9- to 12-month inpatient dual diagnosis program. Hillsman Rehabilitation Center accepted him into its residential facility, and Harbor Regional Center proposed a single-agency diversion plan. The trial court found Hale eligible for each diversion program but denied both motions, stating it was not satisfied the defense presented a suitable program to meet his needs. Hale then pleaded no contest to count 1, count 2 was dismissed, and he was sentenced to 16 months in state prison.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion in denying mental health diversion. Although the court found Hale eligible and suitable, it denied diversion on the finding that his proposed treatment program would not meet his mental health needs, and substantial evidence did not support that finding: Dr. Bowen recommended a specific inpatient program, Hillsman and Harbor Regional Center confirmed they could provide the treatment and services, and the prosecution presented no contrary evidence. Independently, the court's summary ruling failed to explain why diversion would not meet the statute's goals, as required when exercising residual discretion to deny diversion.
The court also held the trial court abused its discretion in denying developmental disability diversion. Under section 1001.20 et seq., Hale was not required to provide a proposed plan; the duty to order reports from the prosecutor, probation department, and regional center rests on the trial court, and the regional center's report must identify a tailored proposed program. Because the court did not obtain the required probation and prosecution reports, its ruling was not an exercise of informed discretion. The court rejected the People's argument that no evidence linked Hale's developmental disability to the offenses, noting section 1001.23(b) contains no stand-alone significant-factor requirement and that Dr. Bowen explained his low intellectual functioning could intensify his symptoms and impair his judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court abuses its discretion in denying mental health diversion when its finding that the proposed program will not meet the defendant's needs lacks substantial evidence, especially where expert opinion and provider confirmation show the program addresses the diagnoses and the prosecution offers no contrary evidence.
- When exercising residual discretion to deny mental health diversion, the court must explain why diversion would not meet the statute's purposes.
- Under the developmental disability diversion statute, the defendant is not required to propose a treatment plan; the trial court must obtain all statutorily required reports from the prosecutor, probation, and the regional center before ruling.
- The relationship between a developmental disability and the charged offense is a factor the court may consider, not a stand-alone requirement the defendant must prove.
- The judgment was conditionally reversed and remanded for a new hearing on both diversion requests; if diversion is not granted or Hale does not complete it, the judgment is reinstated.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that denials of mental health diversion must rest on substantial evidence and, when based on residual discretion, must articulate reasons tied to the statute's rehabilitative purpose; summary rulings without such explanation will not withstand review.
It also clarifies the procedural structure of developmental disability diversion: trial courts cannot shift the burden to defendants to propose treatment plans and must obtain all required reports before ruling, ensuring eligible defendants receive informed consideration of diversion rather than default incarceration.