Court Opinion

ID: 9655261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:04:35.645734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:49:03.461539
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/23/23 P. v. Navarro CA4/1
                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.

                 COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                       DIVISION ONE

                                              STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                  D080567

            Plaintiff and Respondent,

            v.                                                                (Super. Ct. No. SCS317638)

 JOSE DAVID NAVARRO,

            Defendant and Appellant.

          APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Dwayne K. Moring and Michael J. Popkins, Judges. Reversed and remanded
with directions.
          David G. Steward, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
          Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, and
Steve Oetting and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Jose David Navarro appeals from the trial court’s order denying his
second petition for pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code
section 1001.36 (Petition). The trial court denied diversion based solely on
Navarro’s failure to establish that his substance abuse disorder was a
“significant factor” in the commission of his charged offenses pursuant to
section 1001.36, former subdivision (b)(1)(B). Mindful of our obligations
under article VI, section 14 of the California Constitution and section 8.1 of
the California Standards of Judicial Administration, we find this matter
appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion. (See generally People v.
Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.)
      Effective January 1, 2023, and while Navarro’s appeal was pending,
Senate Bill 1223 amended section 1001.36, former subdivision (b)(1)(B), in a
manner favorable to defendants seeking diversion. (Compare § 1001.36,
former subd. (b)(1)(B), eff. June 30, 2022, through Dec. 31, 2022, with
§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(2), eff. Jan. 1, 2023.) Section 1001.36, subdivision (b)(2),
now presumes a defendant’s diagnosed mental disorder has a connection to
his offense and allows the trial court to deny diversion if the People rebut
that presumption. (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(2); Assem. Com. on Pub. Safety, Rep.
on Sen. Bill No. 1223 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), as amended June 23, 2022,
p. 6.) The parties concur that the amendment is retroactive and that remand
to the trial court for a new hearing to determine Navarro’s eligibility for
mental health diversion is warranted.
      We agree. Amended section 1001.36, subdivision (b)(2), applies
retroactively to the trial court’s order denying Navarro’s Petition. (People v.
Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 624.) Moreover, none of the offenses with which
Navarro was charged appears in section 1001.36, subdivision (d), which

                                        2
specifies the offenses that preclude a defendant from placement in a diversion
program. Accordingly, the trial court, through no fault of its own, erred in
denying Navarro’s Petition based wholly on a factor that no longer applies.
(People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [recognizing trial court’s
reliance on improper factors may constitute abuse of discretion].)
      On this record, we can reach no definitive conclusion as to Navarro’s
eligibility for placement in a diversion program under the new standard, and
thus we express no view concerning the proper resolution of Navarro’s
Petition. Rather, determining whether the record contains “clear and
convincing evidence that [Navarro’s substance abuse disorder] was not a
motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to [Navarro’s]
involvement in the alleged offense[s]” is “quintessential factfinding” best
undertaken by the trial court. (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(2); People v. Oneal (2021)
64 Cal.App.5th 581, 589.)
                                DISPOSITION
      We reverse the order denying Navarro’s Petition and remand the
matter with directions that the trial court conduct a new hearing to consider
Navarro’s eligibility for placement in a diversion program under
section 1001.36 as amended by Senate Bill 1223.

                                                                  CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

                                       3