WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge Thursday granted mental health diversion for an accused woman facing theft and child delinquency charges, despite objections from the prosecution that the defense had not sufficiently shown her mental health conditions were a significant factor in the alleged offenses.
The accused is charged with petty theft of retail merchandise and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. According to court records, she remains out of custody and was seeking mental health diversion under Penal Code Section 1001.36.
Deputy District Attorney Allison Valero opposed the motion, arguing that although the accused had qualifying diagnoses, the defense had not met its burden of showing she suffered from those conditions at the time of the offenses.
DDA Valero also pointed to a pending Sacramento County case involving similar circumstances and noted that it involved a firearm.
Deputy Public Defender Adrian Jauregui pushed back, emphasizing that the accused had no felony convictions and a relatively limited criminal history. He argued that the standard for denying mental health diversion is whether the accused poses a risk of committing a serious violent offense, sometimes referred to as a “super strike,” and that nothing in her record suggested such a risk.
DPD Jauregui told the court the accused had been diagnosed with PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, and a substance use disorder. He noted that she was receiving treatment through multiple programs and had consistently participated in services for several months.
According to DPD Jauregui, the accused had at one point attended 19 individual and group treatment sessions per month, in addition to receiving medication management. He told the court she had remained engaged in treatment, had not missed appointments, and had voluntarily sought out services on her own.
Despite resistance from the prosecution, Judge Catherine Rayhill granted the defense’s motion for mental health diversion, suspending criminal proceedings and initially approving a two-year diversion period for the accused.
Shortly after the case concluded, however, the defense recalled the matter after realizing that mental health diversion in a misdemeanor case could not exceed 12 months. The parties also disputed a proposed condition prohibiting the accused from possessing or consuming alcohol.
DPD Adrian Jauregui argued that alcohol was unrelated to the alleged conduct and that there was no evidence the accused had a history of alcohol-related offenses.
The prosecution argued alcohol could worsen symptoms associated with the accused’s diagnoses and substance use disorder. Judge Rayhill agreed with the defense, reducing the diversion period to one year and removing the alcohol restriction from the diversion order.
The court finalized the modified diversion order and set the matter for review on Sept. 10 at 9 a.m. in Department 10.
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.
