WOODLAND, Calif. — A mental health diversion was sharply challenged Friday in a motion hearing at Yolo County Superior Court, even as defense counsel argued that a documented mental health diagnosis explained the conduct underlying a domestic violence charge and that treatment had produced substantial improvement.
At the hearing, Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig moved for mental health diversion, emphasizing that the accused’s diagnosis directly explained the behavior at the time of the alleged offense.
Craig told the court that the accused is currently enrolled in the Full Service Partnership run by Health and Human Services, which she described as “the most intensive level of care in Yolo County.”
Craig explained that the accused is receiving regular psychotherapy and medication to treat a diagnosis made within the last five years. The timing, she said, is critical because under Penal Code section 1001.36, “if the diagnosis is made within five years of the motion being brought under 1001.36, that it is statutorily eligible.”
“I think the issue that the opposition raises is that there is no significant information that this diagnosis was related to the charge of the offense,” Craig said.
Craig noted that during the preliminary hearing, the complaining witness stated she believed the credible threat posed by the accused was due to the diagnosis, specifically citing schizoaffective disorder. Craig added that symptoms of schizophrenia can include hallucinations, paranoia and delusions.
“Those may have been, and there’s no reason to indicate they have not played a role in explaining the tension and dynamic between the accused and the complaining witness on the date in question,” Craig said.
Deputy District Attorney Ashley Harvey argued that the court’s decision “should be based on evidence,” emphasizing that the accused has 11 prior convictions and two strikes.
Harvey stressed the history of domestic violence involving the complaining witness as a reason the accused should be considered a public safety risk.
Craig responded that under the statute, the court should not rely on criminal history when evaluating eligibility for mental health diversion, noting that the accused’s prior strikes were not super strikes.
Judge Clara M. Levers then called Sonna Johnson, a Health and Human Services program representative who has been working with the accused since June 2025, to testify. Johnson told the court the accused was showing “substantial improvement.”
Johnson testified that she meets with the accused weekly, and sometimes daily, and accompanies them to monthly mental health appointments. She said that with the help of medication — including a monthly injection — she has observed improved mood regulation, better communication and that the accused is overall “on top of things.”
After hearing Johnson’s testimony, Judge Levers granted the Penal Code section 1001.36 motion despite the prosecution’s objections. She explained that the diagnosis fell within the five-year statutory window, was a significant factor in the underlying offense, and that with appropriate medication management, the accused was demonstrating significant improvement.
A review hearing on the mental health diversion is scheduled for March 30 at 9 a.m.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
