WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge on Tuesday continued a felony probation violation matter following an Admit or Deny Violation of Probation hearing that centered on the availability of mental health diversion and an unresolved legal question regarding eligibility for diversion when an accused person has a prior strike conviction.
The hearing focused on whether the accused, who has a prior strike, may be eligible for mental health diversion under California Penal Code Section 1001.36 while the matter remains in a pre-conviction posture.
Deputy Public Defender Jose Gonzalez raised a threshold legal argument, asserting that the statute’s prohibition against diversion for individuals with prior strikes typically applies only upon conviction, not before it.
Both Gonzalez and Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays acknowledged that the issue appears unsettled, and both said they were unaware of any published case law directly addressing whether a prior strike disqualifies an accused person from diversion prior to conviction.
Hays said she believed courts have not clearly interpreted how the statute should apply in such circumstances and stated that she did not believe she had the authority to declare the law resolved on the issue, suggesting that further judicial clarification may be required.
After addressing the legal question of eligibility, the hearing shifted to whether the accused was suitable for a mental health diversion program.
Hays opposed diversion on suitability grounds, outlining the accused’s history of probation failures following a violent felony conviction in February 2020, including extended periods without contact with probation, repeated probation violations, and failure to complete a court-ordered drug treatment program.
Hays said the accused was given multiple opportunities over several years, including referrals to residential treatment programs and hospital-based services, but failed to follow through. She stated that the accused has remained in good standing with probation for only about five months over a six-year period, citing numerous failures to appear and new law violations.
Hays acknowledged that the accused and his family reported cost as a major barrier to participation in many programs but maintained that diversion should not be granted in this case and that the accused should instead serve custodial time.
In addition to recounting the accused’s prior history, Hays argued that the proposed treatment plan closely resembled prior plans that were unsuccessful and that repeated diversion efforts have not altered the accused’s criminal behavior.
Hays maintained that continued diversion would be impractical because the accused was not a suitable or cooperative candidate and argued that custody time should be imposed on the probation violation.
Gonzalez countered by emphasizing the accused’s recent progress, stating that he has participated in supervision and treatment in ways he had not in the past, has remained crime-free, and is now taking rehabilitation seriously.
Gonzalez urged the court to focus on the accused’s current conduct rather than his prior record, arguing that the accused is making meaningful efforts to change and should be given the opportunity to continue doing so.
After hearing argument from both sides, Judge Richardson said he was not persuaded that a prior strike automatically renders an accused person ineligible for mental health diversion.
Richardson also stated that he believed the accused remained a suitable candidate for diversion, indicating that review hearings every four to six weeks would be necessary to ensure the accused is receiving appropriate services and participating successfully.
The court continued the probation violation and scheduled a diversion review hearing in approximately six weeks to assess the accused’s participation in the CARE program. The Admit or Deny Violation of Probation hearing was also continued to the same date, allowing the court to evaluate the accused’s progress before determining how to proceed on the alleged violation.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Categories: Breaking News Court Watch Northern California Court Watch Vanguard Court Watch Yolo County Tags: CARE program Court Watch criminal courts Judge Richardson Mental Health Diversion Probation Violation Public Defense Yolo County Yolo County Superior Court