Existing law authorizes the court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant diagnosed with a mental disorder if the defendant satisfies certain eligibility requirements and if the court determines that the defendant is suitable for diversion. Existing law defines pretrial diversion as the postponement of prosecution to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment, subject to certain requirements, such as the court is satisfied that the recommended program will meet the specialized needs of the defendant, among others. Existing law provides that a defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if certain criteria are met, including, including that the defendant agrees to comply with the treatment as a condition of diversion, among others. diversion and they will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, among others. Existing law defines unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony, as specified.

This bill would additionally require that the defendant agree that the recommended treatment plan will meet their specialized needs and would redefine pretrial diversion to require that the court is also satisfied that the recommended program is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion, as described. The bill would state that, notwithstanding the courts determination whether a defendant may pose an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony, the court retains discretion to deny pretrial diversion if it concludes that the defendant poses an unreasonable risk to the physical safety of another.

Existing law authorizes the court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant diagnosed with a mental disorder if the defendant satisfies certain eligibility requirements and if the court determines that the defendant is suitable for diversion. Existing law defines pretrial diversion as the postponement of prosecution to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment, subject to certain requirements, such as the court is satisfied that the recommended program will meet the specialized needs of the defendant, among others. Existing law provides that a defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if certain criteria are met, including, that the defendant agrees to comply with the treatment as a condition of diversion, among others.

This bill would additionally require that the court be satisfied that the recommended mental health treatment program is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion and will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant. defendant agree that the recommended treatment plan will meet their specialized needs and would redefine pretrial diversion to require that the court is also satisfied that the recommended program is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion, as described.

Existing law authorizes the court to grant pretrial diversion to a defendant diagnosed with a mental disorder if the defendant satisfies certain eligibility requirements and if the court determines that the defendant is suitable for diversion. Existing law provides that a defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if certain criteria are met, including, that the defendant agrees to comply with the treatment as a condition of diversion, among others.

This bill would additionally require that the court be satisfied that the recommended mental health treatment program is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion and will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant.

Date of Hearing: August 20, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 483

Author:(Stern) – As Amended Ver:July 9, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill changes the suitability factors a defendant must satisfy to qualify for mental health diversion.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Adds a requirement that a defendant must agree that their recommended treatment plan will meet their specialized needs.
2. Specifies a court may deny pretrial diversion if it concludes that, despite the proposed treatment program and any available terms and conditions of diversion, the defendant poses an unreasonable risk to the physical safety of another.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts of an unknown but potentially significant amount. For its part, Judicial Council does not anticipate any fiscal or operational impacts to implement the bill’s new suitability considerations. However, to the extent the bill decreases the number of defendants deemed suitable for mental health diversion, the courts may experience increased workload. Such defendants must go through typical criminal court proceedings instead, which are generally longer and more resource-intensive for courts than diversion proceedings. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The fiscal year 2025-26 state budget provides $82 million ongoing General Fund to the Trial Court Trust Fund for court operations.
2. Incarceration costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to the extent this bill decreases the number of defendants deemed suitable for mental health diversion. Actual costs will depend on the number of defendants excluded from diversion, and instead convicted and incarcerated as a result of the bill. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000, though it is higher in larger counties. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. County incarceration costs are not subject to reimbursement by the state. However, overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from public safety realignment.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Mental health diversion is a form of pretrial diversion in which a judge suspends the criminal proceedings against a defendant while the defendant completes a mental health program. If the defendant does not successfully complete the diversion program, criminal proceedings resume and the defendant may proceed to trial or enter a plea. If the defendant successfully completes diversion, the criminal charges against them are dismissed.

A court may grant mental health diversion to a criminal defendant if the court determines the defendant is both eligible and suitable for diversion. Eligibility for diversion is based on whether the defendant has been diagnosed with a qualifying mental health disorder and whether the defendant’s mental health disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense currently being considered for diversion. Suitability for diversion is based on several factors, including whether the defendant will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if they are treated in the community. Under existing law, this requires a showing that there is a likelihood that if the defendant is granted diversion, they will commit a specified violent felony offense. Additionally, to be found suitable for diversion, a defendant must agree to comply with treatment, unless the defendant was deemed incompetent to stand trial and is being considered for diversion instead of being committed for restoration of competency treatment.

This bill makes two changes to the suitability factors for mental health diversion. First, it requires a defendant to agree that their proposed diversion treatment plan will meet their specialized needs, in addition to agreeing to comply with treatment. Second, it specifies that, notwithstanding the public safety standard described above, a court has the discretion to deny diversion if it concludes that the defendant poses an unreasonable risk to the physical safety of another.

1. Purpose. The author intends this bill to make sure a defendant who may be referred to mental health diversion understands the conditions of diversion before agreeing to participate. According to the author:

Those who benefit most from diversion, those who don’t have access to care until they interact with the courts, deserve equitable due process and full engagement in their treatment plan. Without providing this plan to them with their full informed consent, we undermine their treatment outcomes and further fail them.

1. Related Legislation. AB 46 (Nguyen) imposes a more cautious public safety standard as part of the court’s determination that a defendant is suitable for mental health diversion. AB 46 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: July 15, 2025

Deputy Chief Counsel: Stella Choe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 483

Author:(Stern) – As Amended Ver:July 9, 2025

SUMMARY: Makes changes to the mental health diversion law including adding to the suitability requirements that a defendant agrees the recommended treatment plan will meet their specialized needs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Revises the definition of “pretrial diversion” to require that the court is also satisfied that the recommended program is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion.
2. Clarifies that notwithstanding the specified statutory public safety suitability consideration, the court retains the discretion already provided in the existing mental health diversion law to deny diversion if it concludes that, despite the proposed treatment program and any available terms and conditions of diversion, the defendant poses an unreasonable risk to the physical safety of another.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that the purpose of mental health diversion is to promote the following:
   1. Increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety;
      
   2. Allowing local discretion and flexibility for counties in the development and implementation of diversion for individuals with mental disorders across a continuum of care settings; and,
      
   3. Providing diversion that meets the unique mental health treatment and support needs of individuals with mental disorders. (Pen. Code, § 1001.35.)
2. Authorizes a court to, after considering the positions of the defense and prosecution, grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendant charged with a misdemeanor or a felony if the defendant meets the following eligibility and suitability requirements:
   
   1. The defendant suffers from a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and pedophilia, and the defense produces evidence of the defendant’s mental disorder which must include a diagnosis by a qualified mental health expert within the last five years;
      
   2. The defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, as provided;
      
   3. In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment;
      
   4. The defendant consents to diversion and waives their right to a speedy trial, unless a defendant has been found to be an appropriate candidate for diversion in lieu of commitment due to the their mental incompetence and cannot consent to diversion or give a knowing and intelligent waiver of their right to a speedy trial;
      
   5. The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and,
      
   6. The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined, if treated in the community. In making this determination, the court may consider the opinions of the district attorney, the defense, or a qualified mental health expert, and may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subds. (a)-(c).)
3. Contains a presumption that the defendant's mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. (Pen. Code § 1001.36, subd. (b)(2).)
4. Excludes defendants from mental health diversion eligibility if they are charged with murder, voluntary manslaughter, an offense requiring sex-offender registration (except for indecent exposure), or offenses involving weapons of mass destruction. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (d).)
5. States that at any stage of the proceedings, the court may require the defendant to make a prima facie showing that the defendant will meet the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion and that the defendant and the offense are suitable for diversion. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (e).)
6. Provides that the hearing on the prima facie showing shall be informal and may proceed on offers of proof, reliable hearsay, and argument of counsel. If a prima facie showing is not made, the court may summarily deny the request for diversion or grant any other relief as may be deemed appropriate. (Ibid.)
7. Defines “pretrial diversion” for purposes of mental health diversion as the postponement of prosecution, either temporarily or permanently, at any point in the judicial process from the point at which the accused is charged until adjudication, to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment, subject to the following conditions:
   1. The court is satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant;
   2. The defendant may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources. Before approving a proposed treatment program, the court shall consider the request of the defense, the request of the prosecution, the needs of the defendant, and the interests of the community. The treatment may be procured using private or public funds, and a referral may be made to a county mental health agency, existing collaborative courts, or assisted outpatient treatment only if that entity has agreed to accept responsibility for the treatment of the defendant, and mental health services are provided only to the extent that resources are available and the defendant is eligible for those services;
   3. The provider of the mental health treatment program in which the defendant has been placed shall provide regular reports to the court, the defense, and the prosecutor on the defendant’s progress in treatment. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f).)
      
8. States that an offense may be diverted no longer than two years if it is a felony, and one year if it is a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(C).)
9. States that if any of the following circumstances exists, the court shall, after proper notice, hold a hearing to determine whether the criminal proceedings should be reinstated, whether the treatment should be modified, or whether the defendant should be conserved and referred to the conservatorship investigator of the county of commitment to initiate conservatorship proceedings for the defendant:
   1. The defendant is charged with an additional misdemeanor allegedly committed during the pretrial diversion and that reflects the defendant’s propensity for violence;
      
   2. The defendant is charged with an additional felony allegedly committed during the pretrial diversion;
      
   3. The defendant is engaged in criminal conduct rendering him or her unsuitable for diversion; or,
      
   4. A qualified mental health expert opines that:
      
      1. The defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the assigned program; or
         
      2. The defendant is gravely disabled, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (g).)
10. Requires the court to dismiss the criminal charges if the defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion. A court may conclude that the defendant has performed satisfactorily if the defendant has substantially complied with the requirements of diversion, has avoided significant new violations of law unrelated to the defendant’s mental health condition, and has a plan in place for long-term mental health care. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (h).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Diversion for those struggling with mental illness is a vital part of California’s criminal justice system. Those who benefit most from diversion, those who don’t have access to care until they interact with the courts, deserve equitable due process and full engagement in their treatment plan. Without providing this plan to them with their full informed consent, we undermine their treatment outcomes and further fail them. That’s what this is about—SB 483 will ensure that all courts across California counties present a treatment plan before granting diversion and makes clear that those being diverted from entering the carceral system understand the conditions of diversion before consenting to comply with treatment. This is how we prevent recidivism, restore dignity, and create a safer public.”
   
2. Incarceration of Offenders with Mental Disorders: Studies show that people with mental disorders are overrepresented in jails and prisons.^[1] According to a 2019 study, more than 30% of the state’s prison and 23 % of the jail populations have a mental illness.^[2] Not only have the numbers of inmates with mental illness increased, the severity of psychiatric symptoms among inmates is also on the rise.^[3] This population tends to serve longer sentences than the general population^[4] and have a higher recidivism rate. Promoting treatment over incarceration has shown positive results in reducing recidivism:

“To avoid incarceration, individuals with serious mental illness need to be diverted from the legal system and offered rehabilitative resources. The homeless comprise a significant share of individuals who come to the attention of law enforcement. A recent review revealed that lifetime arrest rates of homeless individuals with serious mental illness ranged from 62.9% to 90.0%, compared with approximately 15.0% in the general population. For this population, stable housing is a major issue. A recent randomized trial comparing housing first with assertive community treatment with treatment as usual demonstrated significantly decreased rates of arrest among those receiving assertive community treatment at 2 years. These results suggest that efforts to provide stable, affordable, and safe shelter for homeless individuals may lead to lower rates of involvement in the justice system...

“When individuals with serious mental illness are brought to court attention, several models have demonstrated positive outcomes, including mental health courts, drug courts, and Veterans Treatment Courts. Although they serve different populations, the common goal of all these court formats is to address the causes of behavior that brought an offender to police attention. Mental health courts are becoming more common in different communities, each with slight variations; however, common features include a specialized court docket that emphasizes problem solving, community-based treatment plans that are designed and supervised by judicial and clinical staff, regular follow-up with incentives and sanctions related to treatment adherence, and clearly defined “graduation” criteria. A recent prospective study of 169 individuals showed that the likelihood of perpetrating violence during the following year was significantly lower among participants processed through a mental health court than among individuals in a matched comparison group who were processed through traditional courts (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.95; P = .04).”^[5]

1. Mental Health Diversion: Diversion is the suspension of criminal proceedings for a prescribed time period with certain conditions. A defendant may not be required to admit guilt as a prerequisite for placement in a pretrial diversion program. If diversion is successfully completed, the criminal charges are dismissed and the defendant may, with certain exceptions, legally answer that he or she has never been arrested or charged for the diverted offense. If diversion is not successfully completed, the criminal proceedings resume, however, a hearing to terminate diversion is required.

In 2018, the Legislature enacted a law authorizing pretrial diversion of eligible defendants with mental disorders. Under the mental health diversion law, in order to be eligible for diversion, 1) the defendant must suffer from a mental disorder, except those specifically excluded, 2) that played a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense; 3) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; 4) the defendant must consent to diversion and waive the right to a speedy trial; 5) the defendant must agree to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and, 6) the court is satisfied that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined, if treated in the community. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subds. (b)-(c).) The law also states that a defendant is not eligible if they are charged with specified crimes, including murder, voluntary manslaughter, specified sex crimes and any crime requiring sex offender registration. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (d).)

In 2022, the Legislature amended the mental health diversion law to, among other things, restate that granting diversion is in the trial court’s discretion in subdivision (a) (the original law provided the court’s discretion in subdivision (h)) and to require the court to find that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was not.^[6] The cited reason for this change was a recommendation from the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code.^[7] One of the Committee’s recommendations, after staff’s exhaustive research and receiving public testimony from expert witnesses including crime victims, law enforcement leaders, judges, and criminal defense experts and advocates, was to strengthen the mental health diversion law by increasing its use in appropriate cases, with include consideration of risk to public safety. Specifically, the Committee recommended that the law be changed to simplify the procedural process for obtaining diversion by presuming that a defendant’s diagnosed “mental disorder” has a connection to their offense. A judge could deny diversion if that presumption was rebutted or for other reasons currently permitted under the law, including finding that the individual would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if placed in a diversion program.^[8]

In addition to the eligibility requirements of the defendant, mental health treatment program must meet the following requirements: 1) the court is satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant; 2) the defendant may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources; and, 3) and the program must submit regular reports to the court and counsel regarding the defendant’s progress in treatment. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f).) The court has the discretion to select the specific program of diversion for the defendant. The county is not required to create a mental health program for the purposes of diversion, and even if a county has existing mental health programs suitable for diversion, the particular program selected by the court must agree to receive the defendant for treatment. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(A).)

The diversion program cannot last more than two years for a felony and cannot last for more than a year on a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(C).) If there is a request for victim restitution, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether restitution is owed to any victim as a result of the diverted offense and, if owed, order its payment during the period of restitution. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(D).)

The stated purpose of the diversion program is “to promote all of the following: . . . Allowing local discretion and flexibility for counties in the development and implementation of diversion for individuals with mental disorders across a continuum of care settings.” (Pen. Code, § 1001.35, subd. (b).)

As stated above, existing law requires the court to be satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant. This bill requires the court to be satisfied that the recommended outpatient program or mental health treatment is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion as described in Penal Code section 1001.35.

This bill adds to the factors that the court must consider when determining the defendant’s suitability for mental health diversion. Specifically, this bill requires the defendant to agree that the recommended treatment plan will meet their specialized needs in addition to the requirement under existing law that the defendant agrees to comply with the treatment as a condition of diversion.

1. Court’s Discretion: Existing law states that a court may, in its discretion, grant mental health diversion to a defendant pursuant to the procedures laid out in the mental health diversion statute. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (a).) Courts have discretion to grant diversion if the minimum standards are met, and, correspondingly, refuse to grant diversion even though the defendant meets all of the requirements^[9]:

There may be times because of the defendant’s circumstances, where the interests of justice do not support diversion of the case. The defendant’s criminal or mental health history may reflect an unsuitability of the crime or the defendant for diversion. It may be that because of the defendant’s level of disability there is no reasonably available and suitable treatment program for the defendant. The defendant’s treatment history may indicate the prospect of successfully completing a program is quite poor. Conduct in prior diversion programs may indicate the defendant is now unsuitable. (See § 1001.36, subd. (k) [the court may consider past performance on diversion in determining suitability].) The court may consider whether the defendant and the community will be better served by the regimen of mental health court. (See §1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(A)(ii)) [the court may consider interests of the community in selecting a program].) The court is not limited to excluding persons only because of the risk of committing a “super strike.” (Qualkinbush, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at pp. 888-889.) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny mental health diversion under subdivision (a), the court may consider any factor relevant to whether the defendant is suitable for diversion.4 (See Qualkinbush, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at pp. 889-890.)^[10]

While the court retains discretion to deny or grant diversion even where the defendant meets the threshold requirements for diversion (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (a)), this discretion must be exercised “consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.” (Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892.) Thus, when exercising its discretion to deny diversion, the court’s conclusion that a defendant is not suitable for diversion must be supported by substantial evidence based on the individual facts of the case. If the facts do not support such a conclusion, the court’s denial may be overturned under an abuse of discretion standard which is a deferential standard: “A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at pp. 901-901, citing People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449.)

This bill clarifies that notwithstanding the specified public safety suitability consideration, the court retains the discretion already provided in subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 1001.36 to deny diversion if it concludes that, despite the proposed treatment program and any available terms and conditions of diversion, the defendant poses an unreasonable risk to the physical safety of another.

1. Argument in Support: According to California Behavioral Health Association, “CBHA members see every day how mental health treatment, when appropriately matched and consistently applied, can stabilize individuals who are cycling through jails and courts not because they are dangerous, but because they are unwell and untreated. SB 483 offers critical clarity: the court must not only ensure that a treatment plan exists, but that it is consistent with the intent of diversion and tailored to meet the individual’s actual condition. That clarity will protect the integrity of diversion programs and the safety of our communities.

“SB 483 upholds due process while reinforcing collaboration between mental health professionals and the justice system. It keeps judicial discretion intact, but arms the court with a stronger standard for assessing program suitability.”

1. Argument in Opposition: None received.
   
2. Related Legislation:
   1. AB 46 (Nguyen) would make various changes to mental health diversion program including modifying the public safety consideration in determining suitability of a particular defendant for diversion. AB 46 is pending hearing by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   2. AB 433 (Krell) would have added more crimes to the list of crimes excluded from mental health diversion eligibility. AB 433 failed passage in Assembly Public Safety Committee.
      
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1412 (Hart), Chapter 687, Statutes of 2023, removed borderline personality disorder as an exclusion for mental health diversion.
   2. AB 1323 (Menjivar), Chapter 646, Statutes of 2024, required a court to determine whether the restoration of the defendant’s mental competence is in the interests of justice, and if it finds that it is not in the interests of justice, to hold a hearing to consider granting mental health diversion or other programs to the defendant.
   3. AB 455 (Quirk-Silva), Chapter 236, Statutes of 2023, authorized the prosecution to request an order from the court to prohibit a defendant subject to pretrial diversion from owning or possessing a firearm because they are a danger to themselves or others until they successfully complete diversion or their firearm rights are restored.
   4. SB 1223 (Becker), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2022, added a presumption for purposes of mental health diversion eligibility that the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense which could be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that it was not a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense.
   5. SB 666 (Stone), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have added offenses which would preclude an individual from being eligible for mental health diversion. SB 666 was held in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
   6. SB 215 (Beall), Chapter 1005, Statutes of 2018, specified ineligible offenses for mental health diversion and required the court to determine whether restitution is owed to any victim of the diverted offense.
   7. AB 1810 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 34, Statutes of 2018, created mental health diversion in statute and specified that when a defendant is determined to be IST, the court can find that they are an appropriate candidate for mental health diversion.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alameda County Families Advocating for the Seriously Mentally Ill
Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Behavioral Health Association
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Peer Watch
California Public Defenders Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Family Advocates for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness (FAISMI) of Sacramento
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Opposition

None Submitted

Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. Seth J. Prins, The Prevalence of Mental Illnesses in U.S. State Prisons: A Systemic Review (Jul. 2015). ↑

2. Stanford Justice Advocacy Project, Confronting California’s Continuing Prison Crisis: The Prevalence And Severity Of Mental Illness Among California Prisoners On The Rise https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Stanford-Report-FINAL.pdf [accessed Feb. 26, 2025].) ↑

3. Id. at p. 2. ↑

4. Id. at p. 1. ↑

5. Hirschtritt & Binder, Interrupting the Mental Illness–Incarceration-Recidivism Cycle (Feb. 21, 2017) 317 JAMA 695-696, fn. omitted. ↑

6. SB 1223 (Becker), Ch. 735, Stats. 2022. ↑

7. The Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code was established within the Law Review Commission through SB 94, Ch. 25, Stats. 2019 to study the Penal Code and recommend statutory reforms. ↑

8. Annual Report and Recommendations 2021, Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, http://www.clrc.ca.gov/CRPC/Pub/Reports/CRPC_AR2021.pdf, p. 17 (accessed July 3, 2025). ↑

9. J. Couzens, Memorandum RE: Mental Health Diversion Under Penal Code Sections 1001.35-1001.36 [revised] (May 2024), p. 14. ↑

10. Id. at pg. 4. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 483

Author: Stern (D)

Amended: 5/23/25

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/25/25

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Gonzalez, Pérez, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Mental health diversion

SOURCE: Family Alliance on Severe Mental Illness

DIGEST:

This bill creates an additional factor for granting mental health diversion, requiring the defendant agree that the treatment plan will meet their specialized needs.

ANALYSIS:

Existing Law:

1. Authorizes a court to, after considering the positions of the defense and prosecution, grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendant charged with a misdemeanor or a felony if the defendant meets the following eligibility and suitability requirements:
   
   1. The defendant suffers from a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and pedophilia, and the defense produces evidence of the defendant’s mental disorder which must include a diagnosis by a qualified mental health expert within the last five years; and,
      
   2. The defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, as provided.
      
   3. In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment;
      
   4. The defendant consents to diversion and waives their right to a speedy trial, unless a defendant has been found to be an appropriate candidate for diversion in lieu of commitment due to the their mental incompetence and cannot consent to diversion or give a knowing and intelligent waiver of their right to a speedy trial;
      
   5. The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and,
   6. The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined, if treated in the community. In making this determination, the court may consider the opinions of the district attorney, the defense, or a qualified mental health expert, and may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subds. (a)-(c).)
2. Contains a presumption that the defendant's mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. (Penal (Pen.) Code § 1001.36, subd. (b)(2).)
3. Excludes defendants from mental health diversion eligibility if they are charged with murder, voluntary manslaughter, an offense requiring sex-offender registration (except for indecent exposure), or offenses involving weapons of mass destruction. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (d).)
   
4. Defines “pretrial diversion” for purposes of mental health diversion as the postponement of prosecution, either temporarily or permanently, at any point in the judicial process from the point at which the accused is charged until adjudication, to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment, subject to the following conditions:
   1. The court is satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant;
   2. The defendant may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources. Before approving a proposed treatment program, the court shall consider the request of the defense, the request of the prosecution, the needs of the defendant, and the interests of the community. The treatment may be procured using private or public funds, and a referral may be made to a county mental health agency, existing collaborative courts, or assisted outpatient treatment only if that entity has agreed to accept responsibility for the treatment of the defendant, and mental health services are provided only to the extent that resources are available and the defendant is eligible for those services;
   3. The provider of the mental health treatment program in which the defendant has been placed shall provide regular reports to the court, the defense, and the prosecutor on the defendant’s progress in treatment. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f).)
5. States that an offense may be diverted no longer than two years if it is a felony, and one year if it is a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(C).)

This bill adds another suitability factor before granting diversion, namely that the defendant agrees the recommended treatment plan will meet their specialized treatment needs.

Comments

Mental Health Diversion Law. Diversion is the suspension of criminal proceedings for a prescribed time period with certain conditions. A defendant may not be required to admit guilt as a prerequisite for placement in a pretrial diversion program. If diversion is successfully completed, the criminal charges are dismissed and the defendant may, with certain exceptions, legally answer that he or she has never been arrested or charged for the diverted offense. If diversion is not successfully completed, the criminal proceedings resume, however, a hearing to terminate diversion is required.

In 2018, the Legislature enacted a law authorizing pretrial diversion of eligible defendants with mental disorders. AB 1810 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 34, Statutes of 2018.) Under the mental health diversion law, in order to be eligible for diversion: 1) the defendant must suffer from a mental disorder, except those specifically excluded, 2) that played a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense; 3) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; 4) the defendant must consent to diversion and waive the right to a speedy trial; 5) the defendant must agree to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and 6) the court is satisfied that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined, if treated in the community. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subds. (b)-(c).) The defendant is ineligible if charged with specified crimes. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (d).)

This bill adds an additional criteria for the court to consider when determining the defendant’s eligibility. This bill requires the court be satisfied that the defendant agrees the recommended plan meets their specialized mental health treatment needs.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

Unknown, potentially minor and absorbable costs to the trial courts. The Judicial Council indicates that this bill will allow for further judicial discretion in determining the best program for mental health diversion participants and should not create any fiscal or operational impacts.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/22/25)

Family Alliance on Severe Mental Illness (Source)

Alameda County Families Advocating for The Seriously Mentally Ill
Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Family Advocates for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness of Sacramento
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
Santa Ana Police Officers Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/22/25)

California State Association of Counties
County Behavioral Health Directors Association
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties of California

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT:

According to Family Alliance on Severe Mental Illness, the sponsor of this bill:

We are pleased to sponsor SB 483, which expands the discretion of the court to consider whether a treatment plan meets the specialized needs of the individual when considering an individual’s suitability for mental health diversion. This change will ensure that people like my daughter will be directed into appropriate treatments for the appropriate length of time, in the appropriate locations.

Last year I advocated with Senators Stern and Menjivar on two bills (SB 1323 and SB 1400) to improve treatment for people who are justice involved and found incompetent to stand trial. This year, I advocate strongly for any amendments necessary to existing mental health diversion laws to allow discretion to Judges (who have received extensive training in mental health/substance use conditions) to send a person (like my daughter and thousands like her) to the correct level of judicial oversight, requirements, and services to ensure sustained recovery.

Many times, these collaborative court solutions can happen safely in the community as long as the correct level of supervision and treatment oversight is in place. Because each person's care plan needs/deserves to be individualized, I support implementation of the laws with a focus on individualized treatment and placement.

My family experienced this dilemma regarding the proper level of treatment/placement for our daughter's Felony Incompetent to Stand Trial (FIST) status in 2023. Specifically, she and our family appreciated the option for a higher level of care other than diversion, due to the fact that a diversion program would require her to be more highly functioning than she was. I also appreciated the fact that the Judge in our case had discretion in the FIST context to send our daughter back into the higher level of care available in the State Hospital FIST program when it became obvious she was struggling with the requirements of a lower level of supervision. My daughter is a perfect example of individualized treatment plans are so important – and we need to ensure this is happening not just with FIST but with mental health diversion too….

Recognizing that mental health diversion has great promise, it is still relatively new and new laws may have unforeseen limitations when actually implemented. This is why I ask for a humble and honest look at amendments to existing mental health diversion laws as a way to improve the extension of appropriate levels of supervision, treatments, and supports can lead to better outcomes. SB 483, with its emphasis on treatment, is certainly a step in the right direction.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION:

According to the County Behavioral Health Directors Association:

[T]he changes in statute proposed by SB 483 would complicate and slow down processing and placement of individuals seeking treatment by way of diversion. Current eligibility criteria is robust and ensures that: (1) the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, as defined, (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, (3) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial, (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and (5) a qualified mental health expert finds that the defendant’s symptoms of mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment. This bill would add an additional requirement for the court to approve the recommended inpatient or outpatient program for mental health treatment, undermining the assessment currently being done by behavioral health professionals.

Providing an additional step of approval would prove to be problematic in the pretrial diversion process and would be obstructive to the delivery of behavioral health services for those in need. County behavioral health professionals are dedicated and have a keen understanding of SMI and serious emotional disturbance (SED) symptomology and treatment modalities to effectively treat defendants and others living with these diagnoses. This bill would place the court in the role of a mental health professional if they are granted the authority to evaluate the effectiveness of programs that county behavioral health clinicians, with their specialized expertise, are best equipped to assess. SB 483 introduces a framework that allows the courts to bypass the clinical judgment of county behavioral health agencies, potentially limiting treatment placement options and disrupting the effective management of patient care, client flow, and placement decisions.

Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. /

5/27/25 11:17:13

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 483 (Stern) - Mental health diversion

Bill Summary:

Requires that the defendant agree that the recommended mental health treatment plan will meet their needs, as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 23, 2025

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially minor and absorbable costs to the trial courts. The Judicial Council indicates that this bill will allow for further judicial discretion in determining the best program for mental health diversion participants and should not create any fiscal or operational impacts.

Committee Amendments:

Require that the defendant agree the recommended treatment plan will meet their specialized needs and agrees to comply with the treatment as a condition of diversion and recasts the provisions that require that the court be satisfied that the recommended mental health treatment program is consistent with the purpose of mental health diversion.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 483 (Stern) - Mental health diversion

Bill Summary:

SB 483 creates an additional suitability factor for granting mental health diversion, requiring the court be satisfied that the recommended mental health treatment program is consistent with the purpose of diversion and will meet the defendant’s specialized treatment needs.

Fiscal Impact:

• Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of an unknown but significant amount to incarcerate people who otherwise could have been diverted and received mental health treatment. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $77,252 per year based on the average in California's four largest counties in 2021. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions and the length of each sentence. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.
• The Judicial Council estimates a minor and absorbable impact for SB 483. The Judicial Council indicates that this bill will allow for further judicial discretion in determining the best program for mental health diversion participants and should not create any fiscal or operational impacts. (See Staff Comments)

Background:

In 2018, the Legislature enacted a law authorizing pretrial diversion of eligible defendants with mental disorders. (AB 1810 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 34, Statutes of 2018.) Pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.35, the purpose of metal health diversion is “to increase diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety”; “allow local discretion and flexibility for counties in the development and implementation of diversion for individuals with mental disorders across a continuum of care settings”; and, “to provide diversion that meets the unique mental health treatment and support needs of individuals with mental disorders.”

Under the mental health diversion law a court may, in its discretion, grant pretrial diversion if (1) the defendant satisfies specified eligibility requirements and (2) the court determines that the defendant is suitable for that diversion under specified factors.

A defendant is eligible for pretrial diversion if both of the following are met:

(1) The defendant has been diagnosed with a specified mental disorder, as specified; and,

(2) The defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A defendant is suitable for pretrial diversion if all of the following are met:

(1) In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment;

(2) The defendant consents to diversion, as specified;

(3) The defendant agrees to comply with treatment, as specified; and,

(4) The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety if treated in the community, as specified.

In addition to the eligibility and suitability criteria for defendant, the statute provides that defendant’s mental health treatment program is subject to several requirements, including that: “the court is satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant.” (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(A)(i).) This is not an additional eligibility or suitability requirement the defendant must meet. Rather, it is an ongoing assessment of the program to assure that defendant will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require, as an additional suitability factor before granting diversion, that the court be satisfied that the recommended mental health treatment program is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion and that it will meet the defendant’s specialized treatment needs.

Recommended Amendments:

This bill conflates the court’s consideration of a defendant’s suitability for pretrial mental health diversion and the court’s approval of the proposed treatment program. The existing suitability criteria focus solely on the defendant—specifically whether they will respond to treatment, consent to diversion, agree to comply, and do not pose a risk to the public. In theory, the court's evaluation of a recommended treatment program should not influence its assessment of whether a defendant is “suitable” for diversion. Similarly, the question of whether a recommended program will meet the defendant’s specialized treatment needs should not affect the initial determination of suitability for diversion. In other words, a defendant may be suitable for diversion even if a proposed treatment plan does not fully meet their needs. By way of illustration, a person may be suitable for medication, even if a specific medication does not fully meet their needs. The court should be able to distinguish between these two concepts to ensure that defendants who are otherwise eligible and suitable for mental health diversion are not excluded on suitability grounds merely because a recommended program may not meet their specific needs. This approach would allow greater flexibility in treating the defendant during the diversion period.

Under current law, for example, a court can grant pretrial diversion by finding the defendant both eligible and suitable, and then approve a treatment program that it deems appropriate for meeting the defendant’s mental health needs. However, this bill fails to separate the distinct concepts of a defendant’s suitability for pretrial diversion and the evaluation and approval of the recommended treatment program.

Additionally, it is unclear whether this bill places the burden on the defendant to prove their suitability for diversion by demonstrating that the recommended treatment program aligns with the purpose of mental health diversion and will meet their specialized needs. Such a burden should fall on the behavioral health expert recommending the program, not the defendant. For clarity, the Legislature should consider amending the bill to instead require the court to, separately from its consideration of a defendant’s eligibility/suitability, approve a recommended mental health treatment program only if it is satisfied that the program is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion and will meet the defendant’s specialized treatment needs.

Staff Comments:

As mentioned above, the Judicial Council indicates that this bill is not expected to have a fiscal impact on the judicial branch. However, it could potentially increase workload and impose additional cost pressures on the trial courts. This bill would require judges, when considering the suitability of a defendant for mental health diversion, to make an additional finding, as a prerequisite to granting pretrial mental health diversion. Consequently, judges would need to evaluate not only the defendant’s suitability for diversion but also the proposed mental health treatment program to ensure it aligns with the defendant's needs before granting pretrial mental health diversion. Evaluating the effectiveness of a treatment program for each defendant’s unique needs is complex and will require the expertise of behavioral health professionals. According to the Judicial Council, in 2023, there were 7,064 petitions for mental health diversion. If the court spends just one hour reviewing each defendant’s needs and treatment program, and is required to make a finding that the program will meet those needs prior to granting pretrial diversion, the annual cost would exceed $700,000 (assuming $1,000 per court hour). Additionally, if fewer defendants are found suitable for diversion as a result of this bill, it could place significant cost pressures on the state-funded trial court system (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to adjudicate criminal trials.

According to the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, this bill undermines the assessment currently being done by behavioral health professionals. The Association contends that, providing an additional step of approval would prove to be problematic in the pretrial diversion process and would be obstructive to the delivery of behavioral health services for those in need. County behavioral health professionals are dedicated and have a keen understanding of SMI and serious emotional disturbance (SED) symptomology and treatment modalities to effectively treat defendants and others living with these diagnoses. This bill would place the court in the role of a mental health professional if they are granted the authority to evaluate the effectiveness of programs that county behavioral health clinicians, with their specialized expertise, are best equipped to assess. SB 483 introduces a framework that allows the courts to bypass the clinical judgment of county behavioral health agencies, potentially limiting treatment placement options and disrupting the effective management of patient care, client flow, and placement decisions.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 483 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025

Subject: Mental health diversion

HISTORY

Source: Family Alliance on Severe Mental Illness

Prior Legislation: AB 1412 (Hart), Ch. 687, Stats. of 2023

SB 1223 (Becker), Ch. 735, Stats. of 2022

SB 666 (Stone), failed Sen. Public Safety, 2019

SB 215 (Beall), Ch. 1005, Stats. of 2018

AB 1810 (Committee on Budget), Ch. 34, Stats. of 2018

Support: Alameda County Families Advocating for the Seriously Mentally Ill; Arcadia Police Officers’ Association; Brea Police Association; Burbank Police Officers’ Association; California District Attorneys Association; California Narcotic Officers’ Association; California State Sheriffs’ Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers’ Association; Fullerton Police Officers’ Association; Murrieta Police Officers’ Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Placer County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association; Pomona Police Officers’ Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; San Diego County District Attorney’s Office; Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Opposition: County Behavioral Health Directors Association

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to add another suitability factor for granting mental health diversion, requiring the court be satisfied that the recommended mental health treatment program is consistent with the purpose of diversion and will meet the defendant’s specialized treatment needs.

Existing law states that the purpose of mental health diversion is to promote the following:

1. Increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety;
   
2. Allowing local discretion and flexibility for counties in the development and implementation of diversion for individuals with mental disorders across a continuum of care settings; and,
   
3. Providing diversion that meets the unique mental health treatment and support needs of individuals with mental disorders. (Pen. Code, § 1001.35.)

Existing law authorizes a court to, after considering the positions of the defense and prosecution, grant pretrial mental health diversion to defendant charged with a misdemeanor or a felony if the defendant meets the following eligibility and suitability requirements:

1. The defendant suffers from a mental disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including, but not limited to, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder, but excluding antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and pedophilia, and the defense produces evidence of the defendant’s mental disorder which must include a diagnosis by a qualified mental health expert within the last five years; and,
   
2. The defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, as provided.
   
3. In the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment;
   
4. The defendant consents to diversion and waives their right to a speedy trial, unless a defendant has been found to be an appropriate candidate for diversion in lieu of commitment due to the their mental incompetence and cannot consent to diversion or give a knowing and intelligent waiver of their right to a speedy trial;
   
5. The defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and,
   
6. The defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined, if treated in the community. In making this determination, the court may consider the opinions of the district attorney, the defense, or a qualified mental health expert, and may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subds. (a)-(c).)

Existing law contains a presumption that the defendant's mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. (Pen. Code § 1001.36, subd. (b)(2).)

Existing law excludes defendants from mental health diversion eligibility if they are charged with murder, voluntary manslaughter, an offense requiring sex-offender registration (except for indecent exposure), or offenses involving weapons of mass destruction. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (d).)

Existing law defines “pretrial diversion” for purposes of mental health diversion as the postponement of prosecution, either temporarily or permanently, at any point in the judicial process from the point at which the accused is charged until adjudication, to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment, subject to the following conditions:

1. The court is satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant;
2. The defendant may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources. Before approving a proposed treatment program, the court shall consider the request of the defense, the request of the prosecution, the needs of the defendant, and the interests of the community. The treatment may be procured using private or public funds, and a referral may be made to a county mental health agency, existing collaborative courts, or assisted outpatient treatment only if that entity has agreed to accept responsibility for the treatment of the defendant, and mental health services are provided only to the extent that resources are available and the defendant is eligible for those services;
3. The provider of the mental health treatment program in which the defendant has been placed shall provide regular reports to the court, the defense, and the prosecutor on the defendant’s progress in treatment. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f).)

Existing law states that an offense may be diverted no longer than two years if it is a felony, and one year if it is a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(C).)

Existing law states that if any of the following circumstances exists, the court shall, after proper notice, hold a hearing to determine whether the criminal proceedings should be reinstated, whether the treatment should be modified, or whether the defendant should be conserved and referred to the conservatorship investigator of the county of commitment to initiate conservatorship proceedings for the defendant:

1. The defendant is charged with an additional misdemeanor allegedly committed during the pretrial diversion and that reflects the defendant’s propensity for violence;
   
2. The defendant is charged with an additional felony allegedly committed during the pretrial diversion;
   
3. The defendant is engaged in criminal conduct rendering him or her unsuitable for diversion; or,
   
4. A qualified mental health expert opines that:
   
   1. The defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the assigned program; or
      
   2. The defendant is gravely disabled, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (g).)

Existing law requires the court to dismiss the criminal charges if the defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion. A court may conclude that the defendant has performed satisfactorily if the defendant has substantially complied with the requirements of diversion, has avoided significant new violations of law unrelated to the defendant’s mental health condition, and has a plan in place for long-term mental health care. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (h).)

This bill adds another suitability factor before granting diversion, namely that the court be satisfied that the recommended mental health treatment program is consistent with the underlying purpose of mental health diversion and that it will meet the defendant’s specialized treatment needs.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

The author states:

Diversion for those struggling with mental illness is a vital part of California’s criminal justice system. However, to properly treat an underlying mental health diagnosis, the court must be satisfied that the proposed inpatient or outpatient treatment actually meets the specific needs of that individual. That’s what this is about—SB 483 will ensure that those with a qualifying mental health diagnosis that are diverted from entering the carceral system receive the treatment best suited for their diagnosis. This is how we prevent recidivism, restore dignity, and create a safer public.

1. Mental Health Diversion Law

Diversion is the suspension of criminal proceedings for a prescribed time period with certain conditions. A defendant may not be required to admit guilt as a prerequisite for placement in a pretrial diversion program. If diversion is successfully completed, the criminal charges are dismissed and the defendant may, with certain exceptions, legally answer that he or she has never been arrested or charged for the diverted offense. If diversion is not successfully completed, the criminal proceedings resume, however, a hearing to terminate diversion is required.

In 2018, the Legislature enacted a law authorizing pretrial diversion of eligible defendants with mental disorders. (AB 1810 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 34, Statutes of 2018.) Under the mental health diversion law, in order to be eligible for diversion: 1) the defendant must suffer from a mental disorder, except those specifically excluded, 2) that played a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense; 3) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; 4) the defendant must consent to diversion and waive the right to a speedy trial; 5) the defendant must agree to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and 6) the court is satisfied that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined, if treated in the community. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subds. (b)-(c).) The defendant is not eligible if they are charged with specified crimes. (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (d).)

This bill adds an additional criteria for the court to consider when determining the defendant’s eligibility. This bill requires the court be satisfied that recommended mental health treatment program is consistent with the purpose of mental health diversion and will meet the defendant’s specialized mental health treatment needs.

The court should already be considering this factor. In addition to the eligibility/suitability criteria for defendant, the statute provides that defendant’s mental health treatment program is subject to several requirements, including that: “the court is satisfied that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant.” (Pen. Code, § 1001.36, subd. (f) )(1)(A)(i).) Although this requirement is listed as part of the definition of “pretrial diversion” in subdivision (f), courts have concluded that the identification of a suitable program clearly is a prerequisite to the court granting diversion. For example, in People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 627, the California Supreme Court noted, “If the defendant makes a prima facie showing that he or she meets all of the threshold eligibility requirements and the defendant and the offense are suitable for diversion, and the trial court is satisfied that the recommended program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant, then the court may grant pretrial diversion.” (See also People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079 [Even if a defendant otherwise satisfies the six eligibility requirements, the court must also be satisfied that the recommended mental health treatment program “will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant”].)

The author’s background sheet points to Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882 as reflective of the need for this bill. In Sarmiento, the defendant requested mental health diversion after she was charged with attempted robbery. (Id. at p. 886.) Although the trial court found defendant met many of the requirements for diversion, it denied her request, finding her inability to remain drug free after prior treatment indicated she would not respond well to mental health treatment. (Id. at pp. 887, 890.) However, the undisputed evidence indicated defendant never received any coordinated treatment for her two primary mental health diagnoses (PTSD and major depressive disorder from childhood sexual abuse), and the doctor’s report submitted in support of her request for diversion made clear that defendant was unable to remain sober because her underlying mental health conditions were never addressed. The prosecutor presented no evidence to the contrary. (Id. at pp. 887-889.) Thus, there was insufficient evidence to conclude defendant’s symptoms would not respond to treatment. The evidence was also insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that defendant’s recommended treatment plan would not meet her “specialized mental health treatment needs” (§ 1001.36, subd. (f)(1)(A)(i)) because she had a history of receiving prior substance abuse treatment and then reoffending. This does not rationally support a conclusion that mental health treatment coupled with substance abuse treatment would not be sufficient, and the alleged failure of prior drug treatment plans says nothing about the adequacy of the current proposed treatment plan. (Id. at p. 893-895.) In other words, based on the record in that case, the trial court came to the wrong conclusion.

In describing the mental health diversion statutory scheme, the Sarmiento decision concluded that whether the mental health treatment will meet the defendant’s needs is not an additional eligibility or suitability requirement:

Assuming the defendant is both eligible and suitable, the trial court must also be satisfied “that the recommended inpatient or outpatient program of mental health treatment will meet the specialized mental health treatment needs of the defendant.” [citations.] This is not an additional eligibility or suitability requirement the defendant must meet. Rather, subdivision (f)(1) of section 1001.36 read as a whole appears to contemplate an ongoing assessment to assure that defendants will receive appropriate treatment for their particular conditions as part of the diversion program.

(Sarmiento, supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at p. 892, citations and footnote omitted.) Arguably this is dicta. And whether this factor is characterized as eligibility or suitability criteria or as a separate factor, the court must still consider it, as the California Supreme Court held in Frahs, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 627.

This bill specifically lists the court’s satisfaction that the mental health treatment program will meet the defendant’s specialized mental health treatment need as a factor in suitability.

1. Argument in Support
   
   According to Family Alliance on Severe Mental Illness:

We are pleased to sponsor SB 483, which expands the discretion of the court to consider whether a treatment plan meets the specialized needs of the individual when considering an individual’s suitability for mental health diversion. This change will ensure that people like my daughter will be directed into appropriate treatments for the appropriate length of time, in the appropriate locations.

Last year I advocated with Senators Stern and Menjivar on two bills (SB 1323 and SB 1400) to improve treatment for people who are justice involved and found incompetent to stand trial. This year, I advocate strongly for any amendments necessary to existing mental health diversion laws to allow discretion to Judges (who have received extensive training in mental health/substance use conditions) to send a person (like my daughter and thousands like her) to the correct level of judicial oversight, requirements, and services to ensure sustained recovery.

Many times, these collaborative court solutions can happen safely in the community as long as the correct level of supervision and treatment oversight is in place. Because each person's care plan needs/deserves to be individualized, I support implementation of the laws with a focus on individualized treatment and placement.

My family experienced this dilemma regarding the proper level of treatment/placement for our daughter's Felony Incompetent to Stand Trial (FIST) status in 2023. Specifically, she and our family appreciated the option for a higher level of care other than diversion, due to the fact that a diversion program would require her to be more highly functioning than she was. I also appreciated the fact that the Judge in our case had discretion in the FIST context to send our daughter back into the higher level of care available in the State Hospital FIST program when it became obvious she was struggling with the requirements of a lower level of supervision. My daughter is a perfect example of individualized treatment plans are so important – and we need to ensure this is happening not just with FIST but with mental health diversion too….

Recognizing that mental health diversion has great promise, it is still relatively new and new laws may have unforeseen limitations when actually implemented. This is why I ask for a humble and honest look at amendments to existing mental health diversion laws as a way to improve the extension of appropriate levels of supervision, treatments, and supports can lead to better outcomes. SB 483, with its emphasis on treatment, is certainly a step in the right direction.

1. Argument in Opposition
   
   According to the County Behavioral Health Directors Association:

[T]he changes in statute proposed by SB 483 would complicate and slow down processing and placement of individuals seeking treatment by way of diversion. Current eligibility criteria is robust and ensures that: (1) the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, as defined, (2) the defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense, (3) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial, (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and (5) a qualified mental health expert finds that the defendant’s symptoms of mental disorder would respond to mental health treatment. This bill would add an additional requirement for the court to approve the recommended inpatient or outpatient program for mental health treatment, undermining the assessment currently being done by behavioral health professionals.

Providing an additional step of approval would prove to be problematic in the pretrial diversion process and would be obstructive to the delivery of behavioral health services for those in need. County behavioral health professionals are dedicated and have a keen understanding of SMI and serious emotional disturbance (SED) symptomology and treatment modalities to effectively treat defendants and others living with these diagnoses. This bill would place the court in the role of a mental health professional if they are granted the authority to evaluate the effectiveness of programs that county behavioral health clinicians, with their specialized expertise, are best equipped to assess. SB 483 introduces a framework that allows the courts to bypass the clinical judgment of county behavioral health agencies, potentially limiting treatment placement options and disrupting the effective management of patient care, client flow, and placement decisions.

-- END –