A judge can send a defendant to mental health treatment programs after their competency to stand trial has been questioned, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, ruled July 11.
The published ruling clarifies that the diversion can be granted before the question of the competency has been decided. It affirms the opinion issued by the appellate division of Riverside Superior Court.
Case history
The decision comes from the case of Gerardo Velador, a man charged by the Riverside District Attorney with misdemeanor counts of battery on a peace officer, resisting a peace officer and reckless driving.
On Dec. 20, 2019, a Riverside judge—whom the appellate opinion does not explicitly name—granted Velador’s request to have his mental competency evaluated. On April 17, 2020, Velador’s counsel declared a doubt to his competency to stand trial. They then filed a motion for mental health diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.36.
To argue their case, Velador’s counsel filed two doctor evaluations, his prior mental health records, police reports and a letter from a mental health clinic that said it had diagnosed Velador with a mental health disorder and had been providing Velador with mental health services since February 2021.
The judge suspended the criminal proceedings and granted diversion, before finalizing the question of Velador’s sanity. The District Attorney’s Office appealed.
On June 27, 2022, the judge found Velador mentally competent to stand trial. On Aug. 22, 2022, the judge entered a new order granting mental health diversion.
The resolution of Velador’s mental health diversion made the appeal moot. The appellate court decided the case at the request of prosecutors, who asked for the question of diversion resolved.
Decision
The appellate division of Riverside Superior Court ruled on the case before the appellate court did. They agreed with the judges.
“If a person is competent, they can consent to diversion and waive their rights; if a person is incompetent, the court can nevertheless grant diversion. Nothing in the statute suggests that there is something in the process of determining competency that would be required for the court to consider when determining whether to grant mental health diversion, and the procedure following the grant of diversion is identical whether the person is competent or incompetent to stand trial,” the division’s ruling said.
The Court of Appeal agreed. They ruled that allowing diversion before competency is resolved furthers the California Legislature’s intent when they passed Penal Code Section 1001.36. They found the diversion statute was passed to protect public safety and the defendant’s transition into the criminal justice system, give local discretion over mental diversion and to meet the defendant’s mental health needs.
“Granting diversion at the earliest time pretrial, rather than waiting for a competency determination, promotes each of these factors,” the ruling said.
Case information
Riverside Superior Judges Chad Firetag, Jacqueline Jackson and Matthew Perantoni presided.
Deputy District Attorney Janinda Gunawardene represented the people.
Deputy Public Defender Jason Cox represented Velador.
Superior Court Case No. INM1907626
Appellate Case No. E081372
Read the ruling here.
