{"id":101,"date":"2026-03-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=101"},"modified":"2026-03-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-nelson-mental-health-diversion-denial-affirmed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=101","title":{"rendered":"People v. Nelson \u2014 Trial court’s denial of mental health diversion is reviewed deferentially; concurring justice criticizes contrary Fourth District opinion"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Nelson<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-03-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B342722<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Mental health diversion, Penal Code section 1001.36, abuse of discretion review, residual discretion, expert testimony, public safety risk<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Ryan Anthony Nelson pleaded guilty in Santa Barbara County to three counts of commercial burglary and one count of taking an automobile, and admitted two prior strike convictions and several aggravating circumstances. He was sentenced to 12 years in state prison under a global disposition. Before sentencing, Nelson asked the court to grant pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36, citing a psychologist’s evaluation diagnosing him with major neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit\/hyperactivity disorder, and opioid-use disorder in early remission.<\/p>\n

Section 1001.36 allows trial courts to divert defendants suffering from a recognized mental disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, provided certain suitability requirements are met. Even when those criteria are met, the trial court retains residual discretion to deny diversion if doing so is consistent with the principles and purposes of the governing law.<\/p>\n

The trial court denied diversion. It found that Nelson’s mental health diagnoses were not a significant factor in the charged offenses and that he would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety based on his criminal history, which included two prior residential burglary convictions and what the court described as ongoing criminality. Nelson appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six, affirmed. The court emphasized that on appeal it does not sit as a trier of fact. Trial court rulings on mental health diversion are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with all factual findings, express or implied, given the benefit of the substantial evidence rule. The trial court is free to reject expert opinion, including the testimony of a psychologist, where it does not find the underlying methodology or reasoning persuasive.<\/p>\n

Here, the trial court’s explicit finding that there was “little to no evidence” that Nelson’s mental health played any factor in the charged offenses was an adverse factual finding that defeated the eligibility prong of the diversion statute. That finding was supported by Nelson’s extensive history of theft and theft-related crimes that long predated and continued alongside the diagnoses. The trial court also reasonably concluded that Nelson’s prior residential burglaries posed a meaningful risk of escalation into violence, even though he had no prior conviction for a violent felony as defined in Penal Code section 1170.18.<\/p>\n

In a concurring opinion, Acting Presiding Justice Yegan offered an unusually direct critique of People v. Cabalar, a recent Fourth District decision that reversed a trial court’s denial of mental health diversion. The concurrence argued that Cabalar effectively retried the facts, ignored implied findings, and substituted appellate discretion for the trial court’s residual discretion. The concurrence also questioned the practicality of granting diversion in one county when the defendant faced custodial proceedings in others.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n