{"id":293,"date":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=293"},"modified":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","slug":"flareau-v-superior-court-e085722-mental-health-diversion-residual-discretion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=293","title":{"rendered":"Flareau v. Superior Court \u2014 Trial Court Abused ‘Residual’ Discretion to Deny Mental-Health Diversion Without Proper Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Flareau v. Superior Court (People, Real Party in Interest)<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division Two<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-18<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
E085722<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Pretrial Mental Health Diversion, Penal Code section 1001.36, Residual Discretion, Eligibility, Suitability<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Adam Flareau lived with his parents and sister Mikaylah. After an argument escalated, Flareau pointed a gun at Mikaylah and demanded she leave; she was not convinced the gun worked. The next day, after another argument, Flareau pointed the gun and slapped her on the head. He later returned with a taser and ‘dry stunned’ it at her. The Riverside County District Attorney charged Flareau with assault with a semiautomatic firearm, criminal threats, and other offenses.<\/p>\n

Flareau moved for pretrial mental-health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36. Section 1001.36 requires the trial court to evaluate whether the defendant is ‘eligible’ and ‘suitable’ for diversion, and even when both are found, the court retains ‘residual’ discretion to deny diversion. The trial court denied Flareau’s motion. Flareau filed a writ petition; the Court of Appeal addressed the District Attorney’s threshold argument that the case belonged in the Appellate Division and rejected it.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal granted writ relief. The court first rejected the District Attorney’s argument that the matter belonged in the Riverside Appellate Division \u2014 Court of Appeal review of section 1001.36 denials is appropriate.<\/p>\n

On the merits, the court concluded the trial court abused its residual discretion. Section 1001.36 contemplates a structured analysis: first, eligibility (qualifying mental disorder, connection between the disorder and the offense, etc.); second, suitability (responsiveness to treatment, danger to public safety, etc.); and only then, residual discretion. The trial court’s order was unclear on the eligibility-versus-suitability distinction, but to the extent it relied on residual discretion, that exercise of discretion was not properly grounded in the section 1001.36 framework.<\/p>\n

The court directed the trial court to vacate its denial order and hold a new diversion hearing applying the proper legal standards.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n