WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a request for mental health diversion for an accused who has spent months in documented treatment, ruling the defense had not supplied the expert opinion required by law, even as the judge acknowledged the accused appeared to be improving.
The accused faces four felony counts: two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, one count of making criminal threats and one count of first-degree robbery. Three of the charges carry enhancements for personally using a firearm. The accused remains free on a $150,000 bail bond, and a protective order in the case remains in effect.
Deputy Public Defender Harmeet Dhillon asked the court to grant diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, which can pause prosecution so an accused person receives mental health treatment instead of facing a conviction. Dhillon presented proof that the accused had completed a 10-week course, an attendance record, a June 15 progress report and a schedule of upcoming treatment, including an eight-week program for post-traumatic stress disorder. He told the court the accused had been in treatment for roughly five months without incident.
Deputy District Attorney Jose Gustavo Figueroa opposed diversion, arguing the records showed the accused was participating in treatment but did not meet the statute’s standard. Figueroa said there is a difference between a note describing the accused as “participating” and “attentive” and a qualified expert’s opinion that the accused’s symptoms would respond to treatment. He also urged the court to consider public safety, describing the conduct alleged in the case as very violent.
The alleged victim, identified only by her initials, addressed the court remotely. She said the ordeal had been traumatizing, that she is a single mother who had to relocate and find new housing and work, and that she received six stitches to her face. She said she did not believe counseling alone was sufficient and that she wanted the accused incarcerated.
Judge Daniel P. Maguire denied the motion, finding the defense had not satisfied the suitability requirement—by a qualified mental health expert simply opining that the accused’s symptoms would respond to treatment. Maguire said he was glad the accused was in treatment and improving, but that improvement is “not the same as the statement that’s required.” The accused “may well be amenable to treatment,” he said, “but it hasn’t been shown.”
The judge did not reach the prosecution’s public safety argument. Maguire noted that, under the statute, diversion can be denied on that ground only if an accused is likely to commit a so-called super strike, which in this case would effectively mean homicide. He said he would take up that question only if the motion is refiled.
Because the denial was without prejudice, Dhillon may refile. Maguire set a briefing schedule, with the renewed motion due July 15, the prosecution’s response due Aug. 5 and any reply due Aug. 19. A new hearing is set for Aug. 26 at 9 a.m. in Department 8, where the accused is ordered to appear.
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: Harmeet Dhillon Jose Gustavo Figueroa Judge Daniel P. Maguire Mental Health Diversion Penal Code 1001.36 Yolo County Superior Court