Greg Hill & Associates Home
Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
Mental Health Diversion Granted, Torrance Domestic Violence
In 2022, our client was 52 years old. He was an engineer by profession, having worked for 22 years for a Fortune 500 defense industry company. Such work can be extremely demanding and difficult at times. Over years of such hard work, he developed depression. The depression became so severe at times that he twice self-reported for hospitalization to get treatment to overcome this condition.
Our client was single and had no children. He had never married.
However, he had experienced several romantic relationships, including one with the alleged victim in this case many years ago. After the two ended their one-year relationship, the two remained close friends.
On the day at issue in this case, our client was at home, nursing a badly sprained and swollen ankle. He was ambulating with crutches. The victim came over to our client’s home to check on him, as his depressive symptoms seemed to be aggravated by the ankle injury.
After letting his former girlfriend into his home, our client asked her for a favor: to pick up a medical “boot” that was available to stabilize his ankle and allow him to walk without crutches. The boot was being held for him in the Marina Del Rey area. Our client’s girlfriend answered no, stating she was very tired that day.
Our client expressed his disappointment that he would have no other option but to get the boot himself. The victim then expressed shock that he expected such favors from her.
An argument erupted with the victim finally saying, “well then, we’re done, I guess” in reference to any relationship. She then lunged at our client, who was sitting on his couch. Our client defensively lifted up one of his crutches to protect himself and the crutch hit the victim in her hip / buttocks area. The victim then left and called the police, claiming domestic violence.
A Torrance police officer called our client and interviewed him. Our client explained his self defense and the officer thanked our client for his time.
Sixteen months then passed before the client found out that a criminal case had been filed against him and that a bench warrant was issued for him out of the Torrance Courthouse.
The client called Greg Hill & Associates and spoke with Greg. Greg listened to the client claim what had happened and how sixteen months had passed since the accident. Greg explained that such facts would support a motion to dismiss for violation of one’s right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, also called a “Serna motion” (Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 707 P.2d 793, 219 Cal.Rptr. 420). Greg further explained how under federal law, another case, Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, also applied.
Greg and the client then appeared in the Torrance Superior Court and had the bench warrant recalled. Greg then prepared and filed a “Serna motion.” However, the judge hearing the motion denied the motion, finding that our client was not prejudiced by the sixteen month delay in prosecution, although our motion explained how certain phone records were automatically deleted by our client’s phone company and such records were evidence that the victim had been regularly speaking to our client’s mom and recanted her story that our client attacked her. The judge did not think losing such phone records due to the passage of time was significant enough to show prejudice.
Our office did not give up on defending our client at this point. We did not resolve to just enter into a plea bargain on the best possible terms.
Instead, we filed a motion for mental health diversion under Penal Code § 1001.36, as most people would understand how our client’s depression was certainly a factor in how he so quickly became angry at his former girlfriend.
Greg explained to the client what was required for the judge to grant mental health diversion and how, after diversion is successfully completed and the case dismissed, the client can then petition the court to seal the arrest report and court file under Penal Code §§ 851.91 and 851.92.
The client soon thereafter provided a letter from his psychiatrist with whom he was treating. The letter, however, was very short. Yet it did state the doctor’s diagnosis and his description of the treatment plan. As to describing a nexus between the mental health diagnosis and the alleged crime, however, the doctor was hesitant to say more than the client’s mental condition “may have” caused our client to be in a heightened state of awareness and anxiety, causing his anger to be triggered more quickly and easily.
We nonetheless filed the motion for mental health diversion and the People strongly opposed mental health diversion, arguing that our client’s letter from his psychiatrist was insufficient because it did not link the mental health condition to the crime.
At the hearing on the motion, Greg argued that the judge should still grant the motion because under the revised version of Penal Code § 1001.36, it states at Penal Code § 1001.36(b)(2) requires that “If the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall 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 a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense.”
Here, the prosecution had not established that our client’s mental health condition was not a motivating factor, causal factor or contributing factor or even argued that anything else was this, let alone by clear and convincing evidence.
The judge agreed and granted the motion for mental health diversion. She placed our client on one year of mental health diversion with an obligation to stay away from the victim for the year, continue taking medication and treating with his psychiatrist and to complete the 52 week batterer’s program (our client had already attended twenty-three such meetings).
Our client was single and had no children. He had never married.
However, he had experienced several romantic relationships, including one with the alleged victim in this case many years ago. After the two ended their one-year relationship, the two remained close friends.
On the day at issue in this case, our client was at home, nursing a badly sprained and swollen ankle. He was ambulating with crutches. The victim came over to our client’s home to check on him, as his depressive symptoms seemed to be aggravated by the ankle injury.
After letting his former girlfriend into his home, our client asked her for a favor: to pick up a medical “boot” that was available to stabilize his ankle and allow him to walk without crutches. The boot was being held for him in the Marina Del Rey area. Our client’s girlfriend answered no, stating she was very tired that day.
Our client expressed his disappointment that he would have no other option but to get the boot himself. The victim then expressed shock that he expected such favors from her.
An argument erupted with the victim finally saying, “well then, we’re done, I guess” in reference to any relationship. She then lunged at our client, who was sitting on his couch. Our client defensively lifted up one of his crutches to protect himself and the crutch hit the victim in her hip / buttocks area. The victim then left and called the police, claiming domestic violence.
A Torrance police officer called our client and interviewed him. Our client explained his self defense and the officer thanked our client for his time.
Sixteen months then passed before the client found out that a criminal case had been filed against him and that a bench warrant was issued for him out of the Torrance Courthouse.
The client called Greg Hill & Associates and spoke with Greg. Greg listened to the client claim what had happened and how sixteen months had passed since the accident. Greg explained that such facts would support a motion to dismiss for violation of one’s right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, also called a “Serna motion” (Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 707 P.2d 793, 219 Cal.Rptr. 420). Greg further explained how under federal law, another case, Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, also applied.
Greg and the client then appeared in the Torrance Superior Court and had the bench warrant recalled. Greg then prepared and filed a “Serna motion.” However, the judge hearing the motion denied the motion, finding that our client was not prejudiced by the sixteen month delay in prosecution, although our motion explained how certain phone records were automatically deleted by our client’s phone company and such records were evidence that the victim had been regularly speaking to our client’s mom and recanted her story that our client attacked her. The judge did not think losing such phone records due to the passage of time was significant enough to show prejudice.
Our office did not give up on defending our client at this point. We did not resolve to just enter into a plea bargain on the best possible terms.
Instead, we filed a motion for mental health diversion under Penal Code § 1001.36, as most people would understand how our client’s depression was certainly a factor in how he so quickly became angry at his former girlfriend.
Greg explained to the client what was required for the judge to grant mental health diversion and how, after diversion is successfully completed and the case dismissed, the client can then petition the court to seal the arrest report and court file under Penal Code §§ 851.91 and 851.92.
The client soon thereafter provided a letter from his psychiatrist with whom he was treating. The letter, however, was very short. Yet it did state the doctor’s diagnosis and his description of the treatment plan. As to describing a nexus between the mental health diagnosis and the alleged crime, however, the doctor was hesitant to say more than the client’s mental condition “may have” caused our client to be in a heightened state of awareness and anxiety, causing his anger to be triggered more quickly and easily.
We nonetheless filed the motion for mental health diversion and the People strongly opposed mental health diversion, arguing that our client’s letter from his psychiatrist was insufficient because it did not link the mental health condition to the crime.
At the hearing on the motion, Greg argued that the judge should still grant the motion because under the revised version of Penal Code § 1001.36, it states at Penal Code § 1001.36(b)(2) requires that “If the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, the court shall 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 a motivating factor, causal factor, or contributing factor to the defendant's involvement in the alleged offense.”
Here, the prosecution had not established that our client’s mental health condition was not a motivating factor, causal factor or contributing factor or even argued that anything else was this, let alone by clear and convincing evidence.
The judge agreed and granted the motion for mental health diversion. She placed our client on one year of mental health diversion with an obligation to stay away from the victim for the year, continue taking medication and treating with his psychiatrist and to complete the 52 week batterer’s program (our client had already attended twenty-three such meetings).
The client was extremely happy that he was granted this opportunity to “earn a dismissal.”
